Spirituality without God

False-pink unicorns is a well known political pejorative, we know the source and it intended use. It was never intended to mean flesh and blood except of course in 'your' reality.

False-If you lack belief in G/gods, no G/gods exist in 'your' reality, what is semantics for 100.

Your pal Yardmeat can tell you all about it if that is to complicated for you.

Nope, I do not experience 'your' nutterville false hypotheses.

 

It only proves nearby areas of the brain change, not the 'same brain changes'

 

nope. It's identical to a god or gods, as in they are both human inventions with exactly the same amount of evidence supporting their existence.

nope. words mean things. I know you struggle with that concept.

He knows what I'm saying and knows it is the truth.

everyone experiences the same reality, as there is only 1.

 

yes you do, you lack belief that any G/god exist.
If that is incorrect then tell us how many G/gods you belief exist, the rest of the world cant have it both ways, of course in 'your' world Im sure you do.

yes they mean you believe no Gods exist because you have no evidence.

I have evidence that pink unicorns is made up, you however have no evidence that God does not exist. evidence of absence is not absence of evidence

Loonacy, I am not experiencing your reality. In fact I reject it for what it is, loonacy.

If you think I am experiencing the same reality as you, then tell me whats on the table in front of me right now

 

But that doesn’t have to be the case. It’s only like this because current modern science is dominated by these atheist nerds who neither know how to dress or talk to the opposite sex. They are myopic fools who assume (with no evidence) that human perception is materially absolute. And we all know who funds them....

 

Only a complete fool would pick a side between reason and spirit.

 

Hogwash. This “reality” you speak of cannot be defined as “it is what it is.” If that was the case, the universe would have remained in its original singular state.

 

you contradicted yourself. You said I did, and then quoted me not saying what you claimed. lol

this is incoherent

no. it means I lack belief a god or gods exist.

we have the same evidence for pink unicorns and any god in human history.

lol you can't even get that phrase right.

it doesn't matter how many times you repeat this. There is a single reality, that we both experience.

Whats amusing is you don't even realize how retarded your question is.

 

But that's exactly what it's defined as. I'm sorry you don't like that but I really don't give a **** what you like.

 

Lol, what a joke! The poster in question asked how- in philosophical terms- a “god” is possible in the context of the vibrational universe. God was already given, whether you like it or not.

 

Lol, what a hoot! Come back when you can defend your arguments. Like I said, if the universe is eternal, it would not have changed.

 

and again, I don't care what he posted. If you posit a god exists, or are speaking to someone and feel god existing is a given, you will still be called on that because its unsupportable nonsense.

 

I've defended every argument I've made, and refuted every argument you've made.

 

Eternal....not static. You really should at least attempt to make sense at some point, I am becoming embarrassed FOR you at this point.

 

Spiritual means meta-spatial (non-spatial). If something is spiritual, that thing doesn't take up space. If something is metaphysical, it is also mate-spatial and meta-temporal. If something is immaterial, it is also spiritual. Math is spiritual.

So, what parts of you are spiritual? Human intellect, emotion and will are what comprises the human spirit. One's soul is comprised of their intellect, emotions and will. Indeed, human beings are a complex of intellectual, emotional, willful and corporeal processes.

 

The energy of this universe could come from the ultimate reality , god. No way to know either way. But it is possible . To deny that is a philosophical position.

 

You hold that philosophical position . Another position is not based upon the assumption of materialism


Consciousness may be fundamental. If so your opinion is wrong.

 

rahls position is prima facia invalid since we all have different realities and rahl stated it universally, no such reality exists.

 

Something you might like: https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought/logic-religion-and-spiritual-experience

 

You might like this:

https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought/logic-religion-and-spiritual-experience

 

The observer - thoughts included - is also reality, me thinks. Reality is all that exists, so why exclude humans and our thoughts from it?

 

Rahl is talking about objective reality, while you're talking about individual models of reality in the brain.

Once again: defining your terms is paramount.

A computer.

On a fundamental level, we all have the same thing in front of us, all around, and within - elementary particles.

 

yes rahl should define its terms, but never does.

What evidence do you have that rahls universal objective reality exists?

 

Rahl did. He mentioned reality that existed long before life. That's objective reality.

There's no evidence that it doesn't.

As long as observations are being reproduced, with the same result, by different individuals, it makes sense to assume the existence of an objective reality that is not dependent on the observer.

 

Not hard to figure out which side those complete fools ended up on given that science requires critical thinking skills!