Are xians schizophrenic?

[everneo]

Originally posted by Michael
Although this is true, then by you saying it you would agree that I can say that generation of brain generated experiences is caused by invisible chocolate jellybeans interacting at a sub-sub-subbidy-tubbidy-atomic level.

I am pretty sure that there cannot be any chocolate jelly beans that are invisible and operate at sub-atomic level. Kids may find them as amusing familiar terms & to be the reason for unkonwn processes. But if one prefers to call, what theists presume as God, in terms of funny semantics then it is ok for them as for as the characteristics & functions are similar.

But why theists and atheists, alike, assess and restrict God in familiar terms is an interesting question.! Strange, one redicules the other for being less scientific while both refuse to come out of their preconcieved notions.

I think we can agree chemical reactions occurring in the brain are what shape our perceptions of the world and induce the emotions we experience. These can and do occur quite naturally and there is no need to introduce god(s), spirits, and/or chocolate jellybeans to the equation.

Chemical reactions trigger signal transmissions and processes, I agree with that. But that could be achieved thro' electrodes too and that removes the sole exclusiveness of chemicals (with their reactions) as agents for brain activities. Once the exclusiveness gone its an open field for debate.

 

[Michael]

Originally posted by everneo
I am pretty sure that there cannot be any chocolate jelly beans that are invisible and operate at sub-atomic level. Kids may find them as amusing familiar terms & to be the reason for unkonwn processes. But if one prefers to call, what theists presume as God, in terms of funny semantics then it is ok for them as for as the characteristics & functions are similar.

But why theists and atheists, alike, assess and restrict God in familiar terms is an interesting question.! Strange, one redicules the other for being less scientific while both refuse to come out of their preconcieved notions.

But the point is, that although many things are unable to be proved untrue, when determining whether something is true we must fall back to preconceived notions. Just because something is preconceived doesn’t mean that it is incorrect. If these preconceived notions are grounded in unbiased science – all the more likely they are true. If these preconceived notions are based on wishful thinking – well then who knows one way or the other. If these preconceived notions are based on something that has never ever been observed – well they’re probably false.

To question that “feelings” of interacting with god (I’ll call euphoria) are caused by chemical reactions in the brain is testable. This question has been tested and has been found to be true (experimentally). To question that feelings of euphoria are caused by god is not testable. This question has never been tested and has never been proven to be true (experimentally). To question that feelings of euphoria are caused by invisible chocolate jelly beans is not testable. This question has never been tested and has never been proven to be true (experimentally). There are many questions that can not be tested. That doesn’t mean they are not true, but when given a choice between the two – a person not prejudiced or inclined to believe in gods (as you but it preconceived notions) would logically come to the conclusion that those feelings of euphoria attributed to interactions with gods are in actuality just chemical reactions in the brain w/o any gods needed.

Let’s build on this. We know that people with chemical imbalances sometimes “talk to god”. When given lithium these “conversations” disappear. One can never “know” whether this person “talked with god” but the likely conclusion is that there was a chemical imbalance – again no god. Other people appear to be “prone” to religious phenomena. These people tend to have a “closer” relationship with god than most. If one were so inclined, one may conclude that these people have a slightly different chemistry in their brain (perhaps just in the Keq of a few reactions) that has altered their perception just enough. In the same way one person may have a few drinks and never drink again while another can not stop drinking. Just slightly different chemistry in one another’s brain. Now lets move on to the “normal” persons brain. This person sits and meditates for days while fasting and suddenly has a “vision”. Certainly we can agree that fasting for days while concentrating on “god” could cause one to have a “vision” and that this vision is entirely chemically bases with no basis in the “spiritual realm”. Some people found in the desert dieing of dehydration have had similar “visions” (which is something to think about – when wondering why we have the gods notion to begin with). Of course we can never know one way or the other. But a logically minded person will of course conclude that it is simply chemical reactions – and that these can explain the phenomena without the necessity of postulating gods.

Originally posted by everneo
Chemical reactions trigger signal transmissions and processes, I agree with that. But that could be achieved thro' electrodes too and that removes the sole exclusiveness of chemicals (with their reactions) as agents for brain activities. Once the exclusiveness gone its an open field for debate.

“electrodes” or electrical signals are transmitted via chemicals. Specifically calcium, sodium, and potassium vie chemically formed channels found on chemically formed plasma membranes interacting with proteins – which are just big chemicals. But your point is that electrical current is an added phenomena. Electrical current is the movement of electrons – a basic building block of atoms again the basic building block of chemicals. So in actuality it is these “parts” of the atoms that shift between chemicals and these do not need to be thought of as separate than chemical interactions. As a matter of fact THEY SHOULDN’T BE - the movement of electrons ARE chemical reactions!!

 

[MShark]

IMHO religious experience is a common experience that the majority of humans share (other animals may also share this but I find myself on a limb even claiming other people have the same experiences that I have).

The experience is self-awareness. I believe that self-awareness is either the cause of religion/spirituality or the result. Depending of course on your point of view.

I would also suggest that with our current medical and technical knowledge that self-awareness cannot be duplicated with chemical or electrical brain stimulation.

 

[everneo]

Originally posted by Michael
If these preconceived notions are grounded in unbiased science – all the more likely they are true.

There are examples where this might not be entirely true. Unbiased science is not an absolute term. The classical notions of sub-nuclear particles / light, based on classical physics, turned out to be not so true. To understand the realm of quantum theory one has to shed some of the classical notions.

There are many questions that can not be tested. That doesn’t mean they are not true, but when given a choice between the two – a person not prejudiced or inclined to believe in gods (as you but it preconceived notions) would logically come to the conclusion that those feelings of euphoria attributed to interactions with gods are in actuality just chemical reactions in the brain w/o any gods needed.

Correlation does not necessarily establish cause. Chemical reactions might be a necessary base and effects of a spritual experience rather than being the sole cause. However, and for the same reason, I agree that it is difficult, objectively by a 3rd person with the aid of current science, to differentiate between a delusional bliss and a spritual experience thro the measurements of brain activities.

Let’s build on this. We know that people with chemical imbalances sometimes “talk to god”. When given lithium these “conversations” disappear. One can never “know” whether this person “talked with god” but the likely conclusion is that there was a chemical imbalance – again no god. Other people appear to be “prone” to religious phenomena. These people tend to have a “closer” relationship with god than most. If one were so inclined, one may conclude that these people have a slightly different chemistry in their brain (perhaps just in the Keq of a few reactions) that has altered their perception just enough. In the same way one person may have a few drinks and never drink again while another can not stop drinking. Just slightly different chemistry in one another’s brain. Now lets move on to the “normal” persons brain. This person sits and meditates for days while fasting and suddenly has a “vision”. Certainly we can agree that fasting for days while concentrating on “god” could cause one to have a “vision” and that this vision is entirely chemically bases with no basis in the “spiritual realm”. Some people found in the desert dieing of dehydration have had similar “visions” (which is something to think about – when wondering why we have the gods notion to begin with). Of course we can never know one way or the other. But a logically minded person will of course conclude that it is simply chemical reactions – and that these can explain the phenomena without the necessity of postulating gods.

I agree with your medical diagnosis and treatment for supposed delusionals with chemical imbalances in their brain causing extrodinary experiences. But, this is like treating the symptoms than cause. One amazing thing of brain, you would agree, is its ability to counter balance any imbalances in chemicals or qualitative changes in the recptors / axons or the mechanism that releases neurotransmitters. Counter balancing should not be construed as imbalance by mistake.

“electrodes” or electrical signals are transmitted via chemicals. Specifically calcium, sodium, and potassium vie chemically formed channels found on chemically formed plasma membranes interacting with proteins – which are just big chemicals. But your point is that electrical current is an added phenomena. Electrical current is the movement of electrons – a basic building block of atoms again the basic building block of chemicals. So in actuality it is these “parts” of the atoms that shift between chemicals and these do not need to be thought of as separate than chemical interactions. As a matter of fact THEY SHOULDN’T BE - the movement of electrons ARE chemical reactions!!

The chemicals - neurotransmitters and sodium-ions are required for signal transmission between pre/post-synaptic neurons and along the axons respectively. Obviously there are not electornic switches and cables to do the signaling & transmission but had to rely on these bio-chemical substrates. what i meant was electrodes could intercept and control the signaling and transmission mechanism hence the role chemicals being the sole players (triggering / controling ) becomes suspect.

 

[everneo]

Originally posted by MShark
I would also suggest that with our current medical and technical knowledge that self-awareness cannot be duplicated with chemical or electrical brain stimulation.

Yes, I agree. Self-awareness / consciousness cannot be duplicated by any means, IMO.

 

[Flores]

Originally posted by Michael
Dolphins sleep, dogs sleep and dream are you suggesting dolphins and dogs have spirits? Or maybe dreaming is part of the mechanics of having a large brain and therefore just another biological function no different than immune response.

Yes Michael, Our material world is a spiritural perception by our material body and brain. All creations are spiritual and are created by ONE entity named god for lack of better terms, from dogs to one celled bacteria. Now go sleep on that thought so your soul can absorb my words properly.

PS. If you don't believe me, I challenge you to deprive yourself from sleep for a week or two and try to coherently tell us more about how good and lovely is our material world.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by Michael
If I reach into your head with a spoon and scoop a bit of brain out – you can bet it will have an affect on your mind.

No shit sherlock!
I bet if you reached inside Motzart's head with a spoon and scooped a bit of brain while he was alive, you wouldn't find "flight of the bumblebee," would you?
Or maybe you think you would.
But in all seriousness my question to you is;
Where in the brain could you find such manifestations such as the flight of the bumblebee?

I just happen to believe that the “real experiences” you feel and have been interpreted as a “soul” do not represent a soul but do represent “real experiences”

Just out of curiosity, what feelings have people had that makes them interpret it as a soul?

Certainly, you would agree that a person on the drug ecstasy is not in touch with god?

The whole idea is dangerously stupid to begin with. It is just a ploy to put people who believe in God, in a derogatory category. A cheap shot.

Nothing I have related to you is “delusional” - it’s actually scientific dogma. From your reasoning the entire scientific world is delusional while you Jan are the only one who is sane.

You cannot produce those "spiritual experiences" because you don't know what they are. You can only produce what you think they are. If you want to convince yourself that they are the said experiences Jesus or Muhammad experienced, that is your own business. Okay?

Now who again is delusional?

You're not delusional "again" just delusionsal.

In your case someone told you it was god and perhaps went on to talk about the word “soul” and how it is in touch with god –

You're a cheeky little rascal aint you.
You don't even have a full understanding of what you're talking about nevermind telling me what i know and don't know. Work your own stuff out first then maybe we can talk on this level.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Michael]

Originally posted by everneo
I agree that it is difficult, objectively by a 3rd person with the aid of current science, to differentiate between a delusional bliss and a spritual experience thro the measurements of brain activities.

First, how would you define “delusional bliss” as well as define “spiritual experience”? I would assume “delusional bliss” would concern chemicals while “spiritual experience” would have something to do with a “spirit”. We can test the effects of chemicals on the individual. However, there is no evidence for sprit and spirit is not observable and therefore not measurable. As such, it could be that we can replace “spiritual experience” with all sorts of ideas. On such untestable idea could be that highly advanced telepathic invisible aliens living in an overlapping dimension cause humans to experience said emotion.

Or, we can postulate it has to do with chemical changes occurring in the brain. Which is testable and has been tested. Overwhelmingly the evidence from these studies suggest that chemicals, interacting in our highly developed noggin, are what are causing said experiences.

 

[Michael]

Originally posted by everneo
Correlation does not necessarily establish cause. Chemical reactions might be a necessary base and effects of a spritual experience rather than being the sole cause. However, and for the same reason, I agree that it is difficult, objectively by a 3rd person with the aid of current science, to differentiate between a delusional bliss and a spritual experience thro the measurements of brain activities.

Chemicals that are found to correlate are then studied and in many cases are quantified as well as. It's not fully inderstood exactly why Zyban causes 65% of people to quit smoking. If one were to postualte it is god, as of now, you could make the same argument. But, I think, a logical minded person would understand that it is indeed Zyban and that the chemical pathways have not been fully mapped out - rest assured that one day they will be.

 

[Michael]

Originally posted by everneo
Yes, I agree. Self-awareness / consciousness cannot be duplicated by any means, IMO.

This is a great question and let Isaac Asimov to write his series "I robot". We are physical machines – maybe one day consciousness will be duplicated. I mean who would have thought we’d have gone to the moon or have the understanding of physical reality that we do. In 50000 years anything is possible

I, Robot

 

[Michael]

Originally posted by Flores
Yes Michael, Our material world is a spiritural perception by our material body and brain. All creations are spiritual and are created by ONE entity named god for lack of better terms, from dogs to one celled bacteria. Now go sleep on that thought so your soul can absorb my words properly.

Firstly, your postulation that the material world and that all creations are spiritual is a little confusing. If you mean "spiritual" in the sense of: made of energy - then yes I would agree. If you mean in the sense that everything is represented by a wave and that even you are wave and particle. Again - yes sounds good. If you mean some invisible non-measurable non-observable non-necessary consciousness, then I’d say – how do you know? If you say someone told me after interpreting a document written 2 millennia ago and I believe it because it feels right to me. Well, you may be correct – but there is no evidence that suggests that is the case.

 

[Michael]

Originally posted by Flores
If you don't believe me, I challenge you to deprive yourself from sleep for a week or two and try to coherently tell us more about how good and lovely is our material world.

I can postulate – the world is only material. There is nothing other than that observable. If you don’t believe me sleep all you want but do not eat for a month or two. Try to coherently tell us more about how good and lovely is our spiritual world.

You see how silly this sort of testing can be. I go crazy and you think you have evidence for a spiritual realm - you die of hunger and I think I have evidence against it

Incidentally, the necessity of sleep in no way implies there is a spiritual world.

But let me ask you this. If your postulation is the case and you are fully convinced of it. I have a little test. If I can find a person who has a natural mutation in their DNA and does not enter REM sleep and such a person, with this rare medical disorder, is lucid and otherwise (as yet known) indistinguishable from the norm. Will you then agree that there is no spiritual world?

(we dream in REM)

 

[Michael]

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
The whole idea is dangerously stupid to begin with. It is just a ploy to put people who believe in God, in a derogatory category. A cheap shot.

This wasn’t a cheap shot. I was simply giving an example of how people under the influence of a chemical can experience the same (or at least think they do) feeling of being in the presence of god.

Do you see the color red as I do? Who knows, but we can agree we both see something! In the same case, when you talk to people that say they have honestly been touched by god or been in gods embrace or etcetera you don’t worry if it’s the same as the way god has touched you. You just accept it. If you were unbiased you would have seen that this was what I was getting at when I gave the “ecstasy” example. There’re indistinguishable.

 

[Michael]

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
Where in the brain could you find such manifestations such as the flight of the bumblebee

There may be a specific area. Lets move to something a little more correlative with humans – that is instead of an insect lets study something with a developed brain. Birds.

Birds are of great importance to neuroscience. In an interesting study using two types of Birds, a specific area of brain from developing Bird A was removed and placed in a developing Bird B (both are born with the innate ability to whistle a specific melody). Later Bird B could only sing Bird A's song. So yes, it is in specific areas of the brain.

If you’re interested look up bird and brain and song on pubmed:
Pubmed There are hundreds of articles.

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
You're not delusional "again" just delusional.

Cute

You're a cheeky little rascal aint you.
You don't even have a full understanding of what you're talking about nevermind telling me what i know and don't know. Work your own stuff out first then maybe we can talk on this level.[/B]

Not cheeky – what I was getting at was what I've been saying all along - I think that if a person had been raised in a society that had no concept of “soul” then they would never think along those lines to answer the feelings of God/Euphoria. Just look at the typical modern Chinese (Atheist) and (unless you think you'd do different than 1 billion people) you'll agree.

 

[everneo]

Originally posted by Michael
First, how would you define “delusional bliss” as well as define “spiritual experience”? I would assume “delusional bliss” would concern chemicals while “spiritual experience” would have something to do with a “spirit”.

Spiritual experience, IMO, is a higher state of consciousness rather than the notion that it has something to do with a spirit. Perhaps this notion might be leading you refuting spritual experience altogether ( dubbing as delusion or caused by chemicals in the brain ) in the absense of 'reasonable' evidence in your following statements :

We can test the effects of chemicals on the individual. However, there is no evidence for sprit and spirit is not observable and therefore not measurable. As such, it could be that we can replace “spiritual experience” with all sorts of ideas. On such untestable idea could be that highly advanced telepathic invisible aliens living in an overlapping dimension cause humans to experience said emotion.

---------------------------

I am always amused at the way you guys put contenders (invisible choc. something, invisible aliens with dimensional cross over capabilities etc.) of God. The concept of God is well thought out for centuries besides more apparent worshipping. Invisible choc.beans, aliens etc won't fit the bill of God.

 

[Michael]

Originally posted by everneo
Spiritual experience, IMO, is a higher state of consciousness rather than the notion that it has something to do with a spirit. Perhaps this notion might be leading you refuting spritual experience altogether ( dubbing as delusion or caused by chemicals in the brain ) in the absense of 'reasonable' evidence in your following statements.

What is a “higher state of consciousness”? Could you give an example of consciousness that is more conscious than normal? Even given the obvious rebuttal of “higher state of consciousness can be attributed to chemical changes in the brain" (as all consciousness is) I still don’t really understand what it is exactly. Why would you call it “higher” why not “lower”? Higher almost implies a state that would be desirable because of a “super lucidity” that is achieved like an epiphany of complete understanding of reality. These sorts of euphoric feelings are quite common with people who ingest LSD.

So what is it exactly?

Originally posted by everneo
I am always amused at the way you guys put contenders (invisible choc. something, invisible aliens with dimensional cross over capabilities etc.) of God. The concept of God is well thought out for centuries besides more apparent worshipping. Invisible choc.beans, aliens etc won't fit the bill of God.

The concept of god has changed and continues to change. Certainly you wouldn’t go in for a tree god? And a polytheist may think your monotheism rather dull – an Hindi for example. A Buddhist probably feels you’re notions of God are primitive and have been superseded by the elegance of Buddhism. A comparison with Taoism would, at the minimum, reveal the Masculine nature of all of the above and therefore lead that person to think they’re all hypocrite and as such outdated. While a strong Atheist may think they have “broken free” of all mysticism.

Nevertheless, because the concept of god has been well thought out for millennia we know that as of today there is not a single argument that can successfully make the case. If you have one please publish it. With that in mind, an agnostic atheist (like myself) will use that fact to postulate other things that are in the same boat as god. Such as invisible beans or advanced aliens. You see, the same arguments for god can be used to (in specific examples) to argue for these fantasy beings as well (even given that there is a real god(s)). So by stating the ridiculous I hope to point out a major facet of, perhaps, your own belief. And, in all seriously, without ANY sort of evidence or proof or even the ability to be tested, your arguments are really no different. Not that they are worng – just that they have the same likelihood of being true as mine.

 

[everneo]

Originally posted by Michael
What is a “higher state of consciousness”? Could you give an example of consciousness that is more conscious than normal?

It depends on what is the normal state of consciousness.

Even given the obvious rebuttal of “higher state of consciousness can be attributed to chemical changes in the brain" (as all consciousness is) I still don’t really understand what it is exactly.

I am helpless to make you experience that.

Why would you call it “higher” why not “lower”? Higher almost implies a state that would be desirable because of a “super lucidity” that is achieved like an epiphany of complete understanding of reality. These sorts of euphoric feelings are quite common with people who ingest LSD.

LSD addicts achieving complete understanding of reality? you mean, like their hearing the picture, seeing the song, smelling the temperature.. etc.? these screwed-up feelings are what the brain, under influence of drugs, presents. That means chemicals can mess-up what you think as reality. In that case what is the normal state of consiousness is not really absolute. It is then just a usual state of consiousness in which you have all the science and tools to back-up & to verify with. Your perception of reality is not actual reality but is constrained by chemicals in their usual state of quantity and quality in brain. Then the whole arguement of who is right is moot in an absolute sense.

Back to the topic. Higher consiousness. The term 'higher' is an indication of how closer it is to the truth. LSD delusions are far removed fro the usual reality as well as the truth.

So what is it exactly?

Not an effect of chemical reactions in the brain.

Nevertheless, because the concept of god has been well thought out for millennia we know that as of today there is not a single argument that can successfully make the case.

On whose term.? That concept is not a scientific theory.

If you have one please publish it. With that in mind, an agnostic atheist (like myself) will use that fact to postulate other things that are in the same boat as god. Such as invisible beans or advanced aliens. You see, the same arguments for god can be used to (in specific examples) to argue for these fantasy beings as well (even given that there is a real god(s)). So by stating the ridiculous I hope to point out a major facet of, perhaps, your own belief. And, in all seriously, without ANY sort of evidence or proof or even the ability to be tested, your arguments are really no different. Not that they are worng – just that they have the same likelihood of being true as mine.

Prima facie, invisible choc. beans something are not at par with advanced aliens in scientific terms. None is involved in any scietific research as for those beans are concerned.

And invcible choc.beans, invisible green dragons or whatever are not at par with God in theological terms.

Still if you take them as vaild for arguement, either scientific or theological, you redicule yourself.

 

[Tiassa]

Man, Everneo, you must have dropped some bad acid

Try mushrooms instead. I recommend Stropharius cubensis as a good starter 'shroom.

The majority of the content of acid trips is superficial fluff and dazzling sleights of brain. But with so many barriers down, new connections can be made. It all depends on the psyche that uses the stuff.

Besids, LSD isn't the best example. Check out Doors of Perception, in which Aldous Huxley recounts, as best he can, his experiment with mescaline. Just as a place to start.

Crowley liked to eat rye-mold. He turned the Judeo-Christian mysticism on its ear. And yes, it fed both his paranoia and his megalomania, but again we look at the psyche in question: It was already ... strange.

 

[Michael]

Again, my point is that you have no evidence for god other than what you “feel” is correct. And although you may think that there is a differentiation between “feeling” like you are in touch with god and a person on a drug trip “feeling” they’re in touch with god – in reality there is no way that anyone can prove one way or the other.

What does that leave us with then? Standing on the outside looking in, one would conclude that both people are indeed just experiencing the effects of chemical reactions in their respective brains. That is, after all, why people meditate and fast for months on end.

Lets make a list:
1) Person (we’ll say you) in touch with god (and really is).
2) Person on drugs who “thinks” they are in touch with god (but we’ll say isn’t).
3) Person who has a natural chemical imbalance and “thinks” they are in touch with god.
4) Person who meditates and fasts for a week and “thinks” they’re in touch with god.

If we allow for the first to be true – there is still no way to tell they others apart from this first one. And if we had to suppose – we’d suppose all of the above were just chemical reactioins and there were no gods in touch with any of them.

Here are a list. Can you prove that one is true? Do you have observable evidence that one is true. If so do so or provide it.

1) Your God
2) Invisible Aliens living in an adjacent dimension that control some people.
3) Non-observable chocolate jelly beans
4) Tree god
5) Athena
6) Shinto ancestral spirits
7) Sprites
8) Shiva manifestation
9) Allah
10) Buddha

Here is a list. Can you prove that one is not true? Do you have and observable evidence that any are not true? If so do so or provide it.

1) Your God
2) Invisible Aliens living in an adjacent dimension that control some people.
3) Non-observable chocolate jelly beans
4) Tree god
5) Athena
6) Shinto ancestral spirits
7) Sprites
8) Shiva manifestation
9) Allah
10) Buddha

Originally posted by everneo
Higher consiousness. The term 'higher' is an indication of how closer it is to the truth. LSD delusions are far removed fro the usual reality as well as the truth

First of all, you can not prove that – who are you to say? What if I can show you someone that proved a mathematical theorem while on LSD?

Maybe it’s the question not the state.

Regardless, LSD usually just provides people with a feeling of Euphoria – like the world makes sense all of a sudden and more importantly – their place in it (which is usually seen as meaningful/important).

This is not unlike the Euphoria experienced by some “born again” Christians - subsequently they are “on fire for the Lord” for sometime thereafter.

Regardless, I may have a much higher consciousness than you because I realize the truth that there are no gods (or any of 1 – 10). You can see, your definition of “higher consciousness” leaves a little to be desired – who is it that determines who is closer to the truth? Someone else with higher consciousness and how were they qualified? By someone else with higher consciousness . . . etcetera etcetera (oo).

So what is it (higher consciousness) exactly?
Not an effect of chemical reactions in the brain.

Never give this answer for a test.
Q:
What is 1/2 + 1/5 ?
A:
Not 11!

I take it you don’t have an idea of the answer? Again, I think it’s because this concept of "higher consciousness" has some major faults and we are beginning to see that now.

Originally posted by everneo
Prima facie, invisible choc. beans something are not at par with advanced aliens in scientific terms. None is involved in any scietific research as for those beans are concerned.

And invcible choc.beans, invisible green dragons or whatever are not at par with God in theological terms.

Still if you take them as vaild for arguement, either scientific or theological, you redicule yourself.

I certainly did not take anything for a scientific argument. I stated that my notion of advanced aliens/ jelly beans holds as much water as your notion of god.

 

[everneo]

Originally posted by Michael
Again, my point is that you have no evidence for god other than what you “feel” is correct. And although you may think that there is a differentiation between “feeling” like you are in touch with god and a person on a drug trip “feeling” they’re in touch with god – in reality there is no way that anyone can prove one way or the other.

What does that leave us with then? Standing on the outside looking in, one would conclude that both people are indeed just experiencing the effects of chemical reactions in their respective brains. That is, after all, why people meditate and fast for months on end.

Lets make a list:
1) Person (we’ll say you) in touch with god (and really is).
2) Person on drugs who “thinks” they are in touch with god (but we’ll say isn’t).
3) Person who has a natural chemical imbalance and “thinks” they are in touch with god.
4) Person who meditates and fasts for a week and “thinks” they’re in touch with god.

If we allow for the first to be true – there is still no way to tell they others apart from this first one.

I already said :

Correlation does not necessarily establish cause. Chemical reactions might be a necessary base and effects of a spritual experience rather than being the sole cause. However, and for the same reason, I agree that it is difficult, objectively by a 3rd person with the aid of current science, to differentiate between a delusional bliss and a spritual experience thro the measurements of brain activities.

-------------------

And if we had to suppose – we’d suppose all of the above were just chemical reactioins and there were no gods in touch with any of them.

That seems to be a blanket statement.

Here are a list. Can you prove that one is true? Do you have observable evidence that one is true. If so do so or provide it.

1) Your God
2) Invisible Aliens living in an adjacent dimension that control some people.
3) Non-observable chocolate jelly beans
4) Tree god
5) Athena
6) Shinto ancestral spirits
7) Sprites
8) Shiva manifestation
9) Allah
10) Buddha

Here is a list. Can you prove that one is not true? Do you have and observable evidence that any are not true? If so do so or provide it.

1) Your God
2) Invisible Aliens living in an adjacent dimension that control some people.
3) Non-observable chocolate jelly beans
4) Tree god
5) Athena
6) Shinto ancestral spirits
7) Sprites
8) Shiva manifestation
9) Allah
10) Buddha

1) Your God - True and i am not able to pull him in to physical reality as material evidence.!

2) Invisible Aliens living in an adjacent dimension that control some people. - Cannot say totally impossible. So far we have not encountered anything to suggest this.

3) Non-observable chocolate jelly beans - Impossible. It is your pure construct defying natural laws.

4) Tree god - God as such is not a tree or fungus.
5) Athena - No comments.
6) Shinto ancestral spirits - No comments.
7) Sprites - No comments.
8) Shiva manifestation - Manifestation of God. Cannot provide material evidence.
9) Allah - Same as above.
10) Buddha - State of enlightenment and liberated from illusions. Proved already but not accepted by brains-based people.!

First of all, you can not prove that – who are you to say? What if I can show you someone that proved a mathematical theorem while on LSD?

Then he is still in touch with usual reality.! I've no experience with LSD or any other drugs. Only read about. From that read, i presume the tricks of temporally, materialy induced chemical imbalances. But as Tiassa said it has something to do with 'psyche' of the person also. I am not sure. He might be able to provide more details.

Regardless, LSD usually just provides people with a feeling of Euphoria – like the world makes sense all of a sudden and more importantly – their place in it (which is usually seen as meaningful/important).

This is not unlike the Euphoria experienced by some “born again” Christians - subsequently they are “on fire for the Lord” for sometime thereafter.

One obvious difference i could observe is one is depending on the external material (drugs) and the other is not. That makes difference to me. But again i am third person in both cases.!

Regardless, I may have a much higher consciousness than you because I realize the truth that there are no gods (or any of 1 – 10). You can see, your definition of “higher consciousness” leaves a little to be desired – who is it that determines who is closer to the truth? Someone else with higher consciousness and how were they qualified? By someone else with higher consciousness . . . etcetera etcetera (oo).

Truth is not what you believe to be the one. Truth is the real reality, not the usual perception of reality.

Never give this answer for a test.
Q:
What is 1/2 + 1/5 ?
A:
Not 11!

10 oranges + 5 apples = ?
I don't find anything wrong in saying "Not 15 oranges" .

I certainly did not take anything for a scientific argument. I stated that my notion of advanced aliens/ jelly beans holds as much water as your notion of god.

Well, with that notion you won't be able to explore the concept of God with any seriousness.