The joys of life without God

[superluminal]

In a nutshell - basically that there are very good reasons for accepting inteligence as a driving force behind the universe

So, umm... how come so many of us intelligent, humble, and open-minded individuals fail to see even one partially interesting reason to accept intelligence as a driving force behind the universe? It's kind of a meta-question. I'm no longer interested at all in the arguments themselves. I'm interested in why you think a variety of us, from around the world, with varying degrees of education and interest, fail to "see the light" as it were. What in your presentation is lacking? Why do you think we consider you a loon? If your arguments truly have merit, then they should be accessible to all who read them. Right? So what's the problem?

 

[lightgigantic]

So, umm... how come so many of us intelligent, humble, and open-minded individuals fail to see even one partially interesting reason to accept intelligence as a driving force behind the universe? It's kind of a meta-question. I'm no longer interested at all in the arguments themselves. I'm interested in why you think a variety of us, from around the world, with varying degrees of education and interest, fail to "see the light" as it were. What in your presentation is lacking? Why do you think we consider you a loon? If your arguments truly have merit, then they should be accessible to all who read them. Right? So what's the problem?

Here's an excerpt from a post a few entries down

Not to provide an exhaustive list but here is a tip of the iceberg

"in my search for the secret of life, I ended up with atoms and electrons which have no life at all. Somewhere along the line, life has run out through my fingers. So , in my old age, I am now retracing my steps " Szent Gyorgyi

"the results of the scientific search in which, during several decades, I have taken a small part, ... leads unavoidably back to those eternal questions which go under the title of metaphysics" - Max Born

"It is premature to reduce the vital process to the quite insufficiently developed conception of 19th and even 20th century chemistry and physics" Louis de Broglie

"I maintain that the human mystery is incredibly demeaned by scientific reductionism, with its claim in prmissory materialism to account eventually for all teh spiritual world in term sof patterns of neuronal activity. This belief must be classed as a superstition ... we have to recognize that we are spiritual beings with souls existing in a spiritual world as well as material beings with bodies and brains existing in the material world " - Eccles

"We really don't know what the Earth was like three or four billion years ago. So there are all sorts of theories and speculations. The major uncertainty concerns what the atmosphere was like. This is a major area of dispute" Stanley Miller

"there are several tenable theories about the origin of organic material on the primitive earth, but in no case is the supporting evidence compelling" Leslie Orgel

"At present, the gap from the primal soup to the first RNA system capable of natural selection looks forbiddingly wide" - Francis Crick

"The legal issue of responsibility seems to imply that there is indeed within each of us, some kind of an independant self with its own responsibilities - and by implications, rights - whose actions are not attributable to inheritance or chance" - Penrose

"thought processes as well as consciousness are the primary concepts, ... our knowledge of the external world is the content of our consciousness, and this consciousness cannot therefore be denied" Wigner

You may call me a loon - thats okay - but when you have persons from a variety of scientific, philsophical and religious backgrounds making statements in the same direction it sems to indicate something

- remember - its not my idea - it is an idea that I am in agreeance with

 

[superluminal]

"in my search for the secret of life, I ended up with atoms and electrons which have no life at all. Somewhere along the line, life has run out through my fingers. So , in my old age, I am now retracing my steps " Szent Gyorgyi

No point here...

"the results of the scientific search in which, during several decades, I have taken a small part, ... leads unavoidably back to those eternal questions which go under the title of metaphysics" - Max Born

Or here...

"It is premature to reduce the vital process to the quite insufficiently developed conception of 19th and even 20th century chemistry and physics" Louis de Broglie

He's wrong. It's the height of arrogance to suppose anything more than what we observe.

"I maintain that the human mystery is incredibly demeaned by scientific reductionism, with its claim in prmissory materialism to account eventually for all teh spiritual world in term sof patterns of neuronal activity. This belief must be classed as a superstition ... we have to recognize that we are spiritual beings with souls existing in a spiritual world as well as material beings with bodies and brains existing in the material world " - Eccles

Evidence for this idiotic statement? Science demeans the "mystery" of humanity, and it's obvious that we have spirits and souls. What an utter moron.

"We really don't know what the Earth was like three or four billion years ago. So there are all sorts of theories and speculations. The major uncertainty concerns what the atmosphere was like. This is a major area of dispute" Stanley Miller

Umm... so? That's science for ya. Always having to admit uncertainty where the evidence is lacking. Take a lesson.

"there are several tenable theories about the origin of organic material on the primitive earth, but in no case is the supporting evidence compelling" Leslie Orgel

Oh yes it is. Organic material is easily made from inorganic material in your garage with a bottle, an ignition coil, and the right chemicals. It's found in interstellar clouds. Another idiot.

"At present, the gap from the primal soup to the first RNA system capable of natural selection looks forbiddingly wide" - Francis Crick

So? This is a simple observation. The gap from Eniac to your PC looked forbiddingly large.

"The legal issue of responsibility seems to imply that there is indeed within each of us, some kind of an independant self with its own responsibilities - and by implications, rights - whose actions are not attributable to inheritance or chance" - Penrose

This is taken out of context. All he is saying is that the legal issue appears to assume an independent, ethereal "self". Penrose is the guy who thinks consciousness is tied directly into quantum states within material structures in the brain.

"thought processes as well as consciousness are the primary concepts, ... our knowledge of the external world is the content of our consciousness, and this consciousness cannot therefore be denied" Wigner

Who's denying consciousness? This one's pointless.

You may cal be a loon - thats okay - but when you have persons from a variety of scientific, philsophical and religious backgrounds making statements in teh same direction it sems to indicat something

Yes. There are certainly some loons out there.

- remember - its not my idea - it is an idea that I am in agreeance with

Based on such as the above? Here, I have an alien orb for you that allows you to percieve the soul directly. It's yours for only $10,000.00. Cheap. And it's shiny.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Refer to above in regards to spaceship and bridge.

Hey hey...I hope Bells isn't trying to sell me

 

[Enterprise-D]

Quoting scientists that have postulated opinions with no scientific proofs is equal to depending on unverified statements by religious authority.

Lightgigantic, you are counting on the scientists' fame in their research to lend credibility to their varied theisms. Those same scientists will be the first to tell you (the ones that are alive) that the statements are beliefs or proposals rather than proven truths.

 

[Bells]

In a nutshell - basically that there are very good reasons for accepting inteligence as a driving force behind the universe

In a nutshell, there is no evidence to support your premise. So what are those very good reasons? Oh I know, faith. The F word.

What I cannot understand is why theists can be so distrusting and so insecure, they feel the need for there to be a greater intelligence driving everything. Is it a source of comfort that everything is driven by an external greater hand? Is it a comfort to know that this external greater hand is a sick son of a bitch for allowing the horrors that have plagued this world since man first evolved from the ape? Hmmm just thinking about it makes me feel all warm and cozy already.

Why is there a need for you to believe that there is a greater being ultimately in charge? Are you not able to take responsibility for your own actions and the actions of your fellow man that you need a fall guy to turn to?

 

[Bells]

Hey hey...I hope Bells isn't trying to sell me

Unless you're a bridge or spaceship, then no, you're safe for the moment..

 

[lightgigantic]

“ "in my search for the secret of life, I ended up with atoms and electrons which have no life at all. Somewhere along the line, life has run out through my fingers. So , in my old age, I am now retracing my steps " Szent Gyorgyi ”


No point here...

The point is that he pioneered the application of quantum physics to medical analysis - but yeah ... no point - just some guy who has dedicated over half his life to understanding and applying the reductionist view .....

“ "the results of the scientific search in which, during several decades, I have taken a small part, ... leads unavoidably back to those eternal questions which go under the title of metaphysics" - Max Born ”


Or here...

Lol - Once again- just another pioneer of quantum physics - an intellectual dwarf compared to the giants of scientific knowledge like yourself

“ "It is premature to reduce the vital process to the quite insufficiently developed conception of 19th and even 20th century chemistry and physics" Louis de Broglie ”


He's wrong. It's the height of arrogance to suppose anything more than what we observe.

Erm .... I think that is his point - we are not actually observing that life as a materially defined thing - kind of begs the q why you think that life is a materially defined thing

“ "I maintain that the human mystery is incredibly demeaned by scientific reductionism, with its claim in prmissory materialism to account eventually for all teh spiritual world in term sof patterns of neuronal activity. This belief must be classed as a superstition ... we have to recognize that we are spiritual beings with souls existing in a spiritual world as well as material beings with bodies and brains existing in the material world " - Eccles ”


Evidence for this idiotic statement? Science demeans the "mystery" of humanity, and it's obvious that we have spirits and souls. What an utter moron.

lol - ok so he received a nobel prize for his findings in neurology but apparently he could have learnt a few things from you - At least you can't say that eccles doesn't know what he is talking about when he is talking about the brain - I don't know if you can lay to the same claims ......

“ "We really don't know what the Earth was like three or four billion years ago. So there are all sorts of theories and speculations. The major uncertainty concerns what the atmosphere was like. This is a major area of dispute" Stanley Miller ”


Umm... so? That's science for ya. Always having to admit uncertainty where the evidence is lacking. Take a lesson.

So why are you so certain that life evolved from matter? The primary premise for such a theory is to have knowledge what the world was like 3 or 4 billion years ago .....

“ "there are several tenable theories about the origin of organic material on the primitive earth, but in no case is the supporting evidence compelling" Leslie Orgel ”


Oh yes it is. Organic material is easily made from inorganic material in your garage with a bottle, an ignition coil, and the right chemicals. It's found in interstellar clouds. Another idiot.

He is talking about the origin of inorganic material - can you also develop that in your garage from the same said inorganic material?
If not why do you think he is an idiot (actually you should do a bit of research on these persons before you let fly with your statements to avoid sounding like an idiot -BTW most of them are not even affiliated with the propounders of ID - for you to just try and write off their claims just reveals the emmotional platform of your reasoning

“ "At present, the gap from the primal soup to the first RNA system capable of natural selection looks forbiddingly wide" - Francis Crick ”


So? This is a simple observation. The gap from Eniac to your PC looked forbiddingly large.

On the contrary that gap can be traced quite easily - the same cannot be said of the primordial soup to RNA - once again it seems that you are either grossly unfamiliar with the intricacies of micro evolution and base your views on propaganda and superstition rather than fact - or alternatively you are a genius the likes we have never seen or heard of before in science and have your own personal library of evidence that you are not revealing to us

“ "The legal issue of responsibility seems to imply that there is indeed within each of us, some kind of an independant self with its own responsibilities - and by implications, rights - whose actions are not attributable to inheritance or chance" - Penrose ”


This is taken out of context. All he is saying is that the legal issue appears to assume an independent, ethereal "self". Penrose is the guy who thinks consciousness is tied directly into quantum states within material structures in the brain.

Actually it was taken from a recent interview where he was talking about how the current paradigms of scientific definition (ie quantum physics) are not sufficient to define the self - BTW don't think these guys are all fired up ID'ers - I included their quotes just to establish the limits of material reductionism as it stands from the view of those who are leaders in the field and also those who have established the field - all for the benefit of you who insists that there is a reductionist definition for consciousness - inother words you may have an idea for a theory like that but you definitely do not have any empirical evidence

“ "thought processes as well as consciousness are the primary concepts, ... our knowledge of the external world is the content of our consciousness, and this consciousness cannot therefore be denied" Wigner ”


Who's denying consciousness? This one's pointless.

well you seem to be saying that consciousness is a materially defined phenomena - wigner seems to disagree - although he probably never had the good fortune of meeting you to set him straight on a few things

“ - remember - its not my idea - it is an idea that I am in agreeance with ”


Based on such as the above? Here, I have an alien orb for you that allows you to percieve the soul directly. It's yours for only $10,000.00. Cheap. And it's shiny.

- from the array of quotes I presented, all from a variety of ideological determinations regarding the validity of reductionist thought in defining the self, you have just established that they are all loons or something -

The difference between you and them is that they have a vast background of knowledge and experience in their fields of knowledge - even though you have a remarkable aptitude for wit its not really comparable.

Onthe contrary it seems that you are prepared to discard the findings of science in favour of shiny superstition

 

[lightgigantic]

Quoting scientists that have postulated opinions with no scientific proofs is equal to depending on unverified statements by religious authority.

Lightgigantic, you are counting on the scientists' fame in their research to lend credibility to their varied theisms. Those same scientists will be the first to tell you (the ones that are alive) that the statements are beliefs or proposals rather than proven truths.

Erm ... they are quoting evidence - when they say there is no evidence that life exists under current scientific methodologies is that an opinion or a fact? (BTW - don't think that they are all avid ID'ers - they are merely a selection of persons who are held as instrumental in the field of mostly physics)

 

[Enterprise-D]

Erm ... they are quoting evidence - when they say there is no evidence that life exists under current scientific methodologies is that an opinion or a fact? (BTW - don't think that they are all avid ID'ers - they are merely a selection of persons who are held as instrumental in the field of mostly physics)

They are not quoting evidence Lightee, they're stating opinions. Look at the use of words like "conception", "I maintain", "seems to imply", "major area of dispute". These do not indicate anything resembling evidence via the scientific method. I have never seen the words "major area of dispute" in an experiment to measure the the speed of light or in Tesla's magnetism works.

And what? No life exists under current scientific methodologies? Ok, well you know what...I have never observed you, so therefore Lightee, you are not life. I'm responding to a PC keyboard on the fritz. At any rate, that statement is an opinion easily proven wrong through current knowledge of biology and neurology.

Let me emphasise. You hang on to epistemology and status as if those traits can validate outrageous claims as proofs. These scientists can state opinions without them being scientific law. They're human, they can be wrong.

BTW, someone told you that the Roger Penrose quote was out of context. I'm willing to bet that more than one of them are. Where'd you get the quote from Stanley Miller? The Stanley Miller of the Miller-Urey experiment... *picture of absolute innocence*

 

[J.B]

Why do people fear [the theory of evolution]?

Fear of reality

 

[superluminal]

The point is that he pioneered the application of quantum physics to medical analysis - but yeah ... no point - just some guy who has dedicated over half his life to understanding and applying the reductionist view .....

Argument from authority? Spinelessly weak.

Lol - Once again- just another pioneer of quantum physics - an intellectual dwarf compared to the giants of scientific knowledge like yourself

Another argument from authority? Plus an ad hom? Spinelessly weak.

Erm .... I think that is his point - we are not actually observing that life as a materially defined thing - kind of begs the q why you think that life is a materially defined thing

You really are self deluded. That's just how I see it. Based on any available evidence, life is a "materially defined" thing. This is not even up for question. Life is clearly material. As we learn more and more about physics and physiology, it becomes ever clearer that the "self" or consciousness is what is called an "emergent phenomenon" of the complex organization of the brain. All this means is that consciousness is a significant outcome of brain structure that one would not have predicted based on simple observations of brain material. It boggles the mind to realize that there are people out there who think as uncritically as you do.

lol - ok so he received a nobel prize for his findings in neurology but apparently he could have learnt a few things from you - At least you can't say that eccles doesn't know what he is talking about when he is talking about the brain - I don't know if you can lay to the same claims ......

And he's an authority on souls and such because...? Aside from the rediculous appeals to authority, just because someone earns a nobel in a given field does not mean that they are any more or less enlightened in other areas than you or me.

So why are you so certain that life evolved from matter? The primary premise for such a theory is to have knowledge what the world was like 3 or 4 billion years ago .....

How laughably wrong. Look, it's really very simple

1) We have life

2) We see that life is made of matter

3) We have zero reason to postulate other forces beyond the four fundamental forces we know (which were all discovered by their observed interaction with matter). If you have independent evidence that there are other forces out there that can mysteriously give rise to life, please present it.

And please don't embarrass yourself by saying something like "well, life itself is evidence...". You've done it before and it makes you look really silly.

4) We observe the fundamental building blocks of life (amino acids and many other organic compounds) occurring naturally throughout the universe.

5) In the absence of any evidence whatsoever for the "mysterious non-material" origin of life, we study and explore the mechanisms by which life could have formed from basic organic building blocks.

How freaking simple is that?

He is talking about the origin of inorganic material - can you also develop that in your garage from the same said inorganic material?
If not why do you think he is an idiot (actually you should do a bit of research on these persons before you let fly with your statements to avoid sounding like an idiot -BTW most of them are not even affiliated with the propounders of ID - for you to just try and write off their claims just reveals the emmotional platform of your reasoning

He said ORGANIC material. Learn to read. And as I said in a previous response, the "authority" of a person outside of their field of study and expertise is no more compelling than yours or mine. This attitude of yours just serves to confirm that you have been indoctrinated into a cult of theistic authority. You should be a little ashamed at your clear lack of logical thinking skills.

On the contrary that gap can be traced quite easily - the same cannot be said of the primordial soup to RNA - once again it seems that you are either grossly unfamiliar with the intricacies of micro evolution and base your views on propaganda and superstition rather than fact - or alternatively you are a genius the likes we have never seen or heard of before in science and have your own personal library of evidence that you are not revealing to us

Once again, rampant stupidity.

1) We can trace the Eniac to PC gap because we spanned the gap ourselves. Duh!

2) The primordial soup-to-RNA gap (or other precursor replicator) has a number of fascinating theories that are yielding ever more understanding into how this happened. Of coures we don't know yet how this occurred! Duh!

3) What does micro evolution have to do with the genesis of life? You really are ignorant of this subject matter. You put words together that sound good to you, and only succeed in making a laughing stock of yourself. Abiogenesis is the study of the mechanisms that lead to life. Macro-evolution is the study of the evolution of lifeforms into new species, and micro-evolution concerns the evolution of organisms within the species definition.

Actually it was taken from a recent interview where he was talking about how the current paradigms of scientific definition (ie quantum physics) are not sufficient to define the self - BTW don't think these guys are all fired up ID'ers - I included their quotes just to establish the limits of material reductionism as it stands from the view of those who are leaders in the field and also those who have established the field - all for the benefit of you who insists that there is a reductionist definition for consciousness - inother words you may have an idea for a theory like that but you definitely do not have any empirical evidence

Did I ever say that anyone has strict conclusive evidence that consciousness is purely an outcome of brain physiology? I did not, and will not claim such a thing. It is 99.999% certain though, given our current understanding of the universe. The question here has always been about those of you who take that 0.001% and make religions and cults out of it. It's really very unintelligent.

And I'll reiterate - the speculations of super-genius physicists regarding things for which no one has any evidence are no more or less valid than yours or mine. Sometimes less so.

Who would you listen to regarding programming technique? A super physicist who wrote one program in his whole life? Or me, who's written hundreds at all levels?

well you seem to be saying that consciousness is a materially defined phenomena - wigner seems to disagree - although he probably never had the good fortune of meeting you to set him straight on a few things

Clearly. I am backed by the fact that NO ONE has one tiny shred of evidence for the existence of any force or phenomenon that does not fall into the category of energy, forces, or matter as we currently know them.

Obviously, we may discover new "things" in the universe at any time, but to assert that some "undiscovered essence" is responsible for life or consciousness with ZERO observation of any evidence for this "essence" (remember, no circular arguments please) is not just arragance, but pure stupidity.

- from the array of quotes I presented, all from a variety of ideological determinations regarding the validity of reductionist thought in defining the self, you have just established that they are all loons or something -

Tell you what. Why don't you do some google research on the claims made outside their field of expertise by renouned scientists and philosophers throughout history, and tell me what you find. It's good for a laugh. Loons is not too strong a word.

The difference between you and them is that they have a vast background of knowledge and experience in their fields of knowledge...

I think I've put this issue to rest. Ja?

Onthe contrary it seems that you are prepared to discard the findings of science in favour of shiny superstition

Think you could twist that around anymore? You're clearly not trying hard enough.

So, what findings of science support the existence of an as-yet undetected "essence" that is responsible for life and consciousness? Do tell? You must have some solid, compelling evidence you're keeping from us.

 

[lightgigantic]

superluminal

Argument from authority? Spinelessly weak.


Another argument from authority? Plus an ad hom? Spinelessly weak.

So we should reject the statements of scientists and rely instead on your authority?
And what is the basis for your authority?
At the least it doesn't appear to be a foundation of scientific knowledge ....

Maybe you should just post links to what you are reading to determine the nature of scientific thought because as it stands it is not very scientific

 

[superluminal]

superluminal



So we should reject the statements of scientists and rely instead on your authority?
And what is the basis for your authority?
At the least it doesn't appear to be a foundation of scientific knowledge ....

Maybe you should just post links to what you are reading to determine the nature of scientific thought because as it stands it is not very scientific

A nice weak response. And you dare call me unscientific? You who dosen't know abiogenesis from microevolution? Who can't understand the basic premise of scientific thought? I see you've run out of any grain of an argument. Oh well.

 

[Nobody Special]

Thanks James R for posting this, and I especially want to thank Mr Shermer because I've been searching all my life for someone who has all the answers. I've been reading sciforums overtime lately. A fellow by the name of Boris had me just about convinced that I might as well give up and leave life because there is no point to it. Okay, I admit the foregoing is just BS. I feel so sad that these fellows don't realize they have a spirit and that there's more to life than physical reality. I know, I know, show me the proof, right? Sheesh. After fifty years of debating. I'm taking a breather and letting others take on the task while I watch and rest up.

Love and best regards always.

 

[lightgigantic]

A nice weak response. And you dare call me unscientific? You who dosen't know abiogenesis from microevolution? Who can't understand the basic premise of scientific thought? I see you've run out of any grain of an argument. Oh well.

So where do you go from abiogenesis and microevolution to evidence that life (ie consciousness) is a materially defined thing?

 

[(Q)]

Thanks James R for posting this, and I especially want to thank Mr Shermer because I've been searching all my life for someone who has all the answers. I've been reading sciforums overtime lately. A fellow by the name of Boris had me just about convinced that I might as well give up and leave life because there is no point to it. Okay, I admit the foregoing is just BS. I feel so sad that these fellows don't realize they have a spirit and that there's more to life than physical reality. I know, I know, show me the proof, right? Sheesh. After fifty years of debating. I'm taking a breather and letting others take on the task while I watch and rest up.

Love and best regards always.

Fifty years, and you've come up with what? Funny, I don't ever remember reading that Boris wished anyone to 'give up and leave life because there is no point to it' - could you please provide the relative posts for that claim?

Or, was that your own misunderstanding?

 

[(Q)]

So we should reject the statements of scientists and rely instead on your authority?
And what is the basis for your authority?
At the least it doesn't appear to be a foundation of scientific knowledge ....

Therein lies the problem LG, you're always under the impression authority is the key to understanding, that if an authority says it's so, then you take it for the truth. The problem is two-fold.

First, YOU need to make the decision as to whose authority is credible, which is redundant simply because you have no grounds to decide the authority other than from what the authority is claiming based on what YOU want to believe - circular motion, the dog chasing its tail. Second, Scientists are not authorities, nor do they advocate such, they are simply people who have taken the time to observe, theorize, test and share the results. It is up to YOU to determine if those results are of value and if you can find them useful or not.

From observing and testing electrons, someone found that information useful and created the computer YOU use to discredit the science and the very person who created that computer. And what do you use as your guide for discrediting that science? Your self-appointed authority, of course.

 

[superluminal]

So where do you go from abiogenesis and microevolution to evidence that life (ie consciousness) is a materially defined thing?

Ok. So far, all we have is strong circumstantial evidence that life is just what it appears to be - biochemical, biomechanical structures with properties that the human variety seems to find interesting and "special". I have the following facts:

1) Life exists.

2) Living things are made of matter.

3) We know that in the lab and in every corner of the universe, the building blocks of life can be, and indeed are, synthesized from raw elemental matter.

3) There in no evidence of any kind for fundamentally different phenomenon from:
a) Matter, in the form of the known elementary particles.
b) Forces in the form of Strong nuclear, Weak nuclear, Electromagnetism, and Gravity.

4) Every fundamental thing we examine is explained, so far virtually perfectly,by applying two ideas - Quantum Mechanics and Relativity (special and general).

With these simple facts in mind, what reason at all is there to think that life is anything other than "materially" defined?

There are still many things we do not yet understand about the universe. But why should such a situation imply that those as-yet not understood phenomena (Consciousness? The fluid dynamics of stellar interiors? The genesis of life? Weather patterns on earth? Why the universe was hot and dense and is now not? Etc...) are automatically due to some completely undefined and unobserved "spiritual" force or "driving intelligence"?

Can you or anyone here clearly state why, with no other reason than "we don't yet understand it", you insist that there is something "spiritual" in the nature of the universe?

Do you not see that you are just like the people who insisted that the earth was flat? Or that the stars and planets were fixed to crystal spheres? Or that the earth was the center of the universe? Or that olympian gods ruled the fortunes of men? Or that disease was caused by demonic posession?

Why are you not philosophically agnostic toward ideas that have no observable reality?

Why not just say, "Ok. Is there any use in investigating a cause for the formation of life that involves some phenomenon that we have never observed, and have no evidence for?"

Where will you start you investigation? How will you phrase your proposal for funding? What equipment will you use? What tests of verification do you propose? How does this "spiritual" essence relate to the known properties of the universe? How does it interact with matter and energy to cause an effect on the matter which all things are made of?

Can any of you concisely answer any of the fundamental point's I've raised?

Your only answer, I think, can be that "spirituality" or an "uberconsciousness" behind the universe is just an idea you like and it gives you some form of personal satisfaction to believe it. That's fine. But promoting it as any sort of fact or reality crosses the border into delusion. I've posted the definitions for "delusion" before. Religious conviction, by definition, is delusion. It is a culturally sanctioned delusion to be sure, but delusion nonetheless.

 

[KennyJC]

Can any of you concisely answer any of the fundamental point's I've raised?

I eagerly await...