How did you work it out?

[Nine]

Again, without the desire to go beyond this physical world there is no way that one can go beyond it.

Whats the point? Beyond is just a bizarre assumption of a thing its impossible to gain any reasonable knowledge of.

You decided to stay within his limited boundaries, you are happy with this situation and that is ok but you can not say that beyond this physical world nothing exist.

Maybe you should ask what I think rather than telling me. Fortunately you are right. I am happy with the physical world. Why wouldn't I be it appears to be our only one.

Saying you have a non-physical world lurking around just sounds like a slimy cop out to me. Its basically admitting that god has no place in this one so relegating it somewhere it can't be found.

---

Oh fuck. I didn't notice this was an intro thread.

Welcome!

Make another thread if you want to continue talking.

[Little Rik]

When I say 'naturally' I mean that which comes from the physical world. Our world. Reality. The universe.
It doesn't need any supernatural being/force to explain it.
Science encompasses nature... There is no science outside of nature.

Science? Again you mean physical science as if this science could explain a phenomena outside physicality.
The universe is our physical reality, that does not mean that is also our real reality or the reality that go beyond the physical body.
To understand something outside the physicality one must first develop the senseS that are able to go beyond this physicality.

The reason that religion and the supernatural aren't a part of scientific research, is that there is no evidence for it.
If you say that you feel a presence, or that someone is helping you: that being must be interacting with our physical world... Therefore, it can be tested. It isn't that difficult a concept to understand.

I am not interested in religion or in supernatural.
To me God is natural not supernatural.
On the contrary this universe is limited in his naturalness just because regard only the physical side.
As far as testing anything this is individual and rightly so.
The feeling that i experience belongs to me.
It is like if i would ask you what you feel when you make love with your lover.

[LastPoet]

Well we could fuck anyone without god. So what? I could've just let this guy I know homeless, but I offered him an annex I have to my house... well its a roof.

[Minimalist]

I said to him ......physical science is called PHYSICAL just because is confined to the physical arena or physical universe and therefore is unable to go beyond.

When you can produce evidence that your fairy tales are true we'll all evaluate it.

Meanwhile, I won't be holding my breath waiting for you to do so.

You believe in your god because you want to. No other reason.

[Napoléon]

Science? Again you mean physical science as if this science could explain a phenomena outside physicality.
The universe is our physical reality, that does not mean that is also our real reality or the reality that go beyond the physical body.
To understand something outside the physicality one must first develop the senseS that are able to go beyond this physicality.

There is no such thing as a sense which goes beyond this 'physicality', this universe.

If you think you have one, you're quite simply deluded.

I am not interested in religion or in supernatural.
To me God is natural not supernatural.

You contradict yourself.

In one breath you say we must look beyond the physical universe for god, with senses that are beyond physical, yet in the other you say he is natural?

If he was natural, he would exist in this universe, in this physical realm.

Bottom line is, there's no evidence that such an 'entity' does exist.

If you think there is evidence, it's either unnatural, or exists only in your mind. If the latter, there is almost certainly a natural explanation for it. And every single natural explanation we have for every single thing in the universe, has no requirement whatsoever for a deity.

On the contrary this universe is limited in his naturalness just because regard only the physical side.

What are you suggesting? That there is more to the universe than we can currently see.

I for one don't doubt this claim may be true, yet, what is potentially beyond this universe is a mystery to every person alive, and anyone who says they have the answers is either a liar or deluded. As no one can possibly know what is beyond, to place faith in any scenario when there is no evidence to support it just seems foolish and a waste of time to me personally.

As far as testing anything this is individual and rightly so.
The feeling that i experience belongs to me.
It is like if i would ask you what you feel when you make love with your lover.

Chemical reactions in your brain are not proofs of god.


by the way.

[LastPoet]

How self absorbed one has to be to think he knows what the possible creator of the universe is...


Yeah, they are full of teh bullshit.

[Ben Davis]

Science? Again you mean physical science as if this science could explain a phenomena outside physicality.

You're missing the point: there is no evidence that anything exists outside our physical reality, only our imagination. To put it another way, the defining attributes of things that are 'outside our physical reality' and 'things which do not exist' are the same (e.g. unempirical, do not interact with the physical universe, undetectable etc.). Why do you find it hard to understand therefore that people who place importance on evidence will reject claims pertaining to 'things outside physical reality'?

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that these things 'definitely don't exist', I'm just questioning how you support the claim that they do if there's no evidence which can be used to convince other people.

The universe is our physical reality...

Hehe, there are lots of practical definitions for 'universe'. The one you've used is common and works for (for example) practical cosmologists and laypeople. To mathematicians or theoretical physicians, the universe is the set of all possibilities (including those which are unimagined). To philosophers, it has many definitions. It looks like you're suffering limitations of definition for your perspective!

...that does not mean that is also our real reality or the reality that go beyond the physical body.

Got any factual evidence to suggest it does? Until that point, it's impossible to differentiate between 'things that don't exist' and the attributes you're defining for this 'alternate reality'.

To understand something outside the physicality one must first develop the senseS that are able to go beyond this physicality.

If no evidence can be provided of things outside 'the physicality', how can you tell that you have senses that can detect it? Surely if you can detect it, evidence will result due to the interaction with whatever is doing the sensing.

I am not interested in religion or in supernatural.
To me God is natural not supernatural.

Ah, so you're a naturalist. I'm surprised therefore that such a large part of your definition of god relies on supernatural suppositions.

The feeling that i experience belongs to me.
It is like if i would ask you what you feel when you make love with your lover.

The problem there is that neuro-science can tell you exactly what's going on in a brain when love is made (e.g. dopamine & seratonin levels, active areas of the brain). A social understanding of the qualia therefore gives us a reasonable idea of how that feels; it's quite describable in terms which most people can understand. Hence the popularity of erotic fiction!

Overall, it seems your definitions of god are of the deist variety. Or do you make the claim that your god can interact with your definition of our physical universe?

[LastPoet]

Guys, this kind of dicussion should be moved to other forums, this is intro.

[Tonus]

Welcome, enrico.

As far as testing anything this is individual and rightly so.
The feeling that i experience belongs to me.

On another site, a user made the point that the universe as described by the believer is no different in appearance from that described by the non-believer. All evidence for god is hidden to those who would ask for it. Those who receive it, get it in a form that is unique and not reproducible.

That comment hit me like a bolt out of the blue, because it really should've been so obvious during all of those years that I was arguing that yeah, god existed... and no, no one could prove it but god, and he wasn't talking. I point to an empty box and I tell you that it's empty because I don't see anything inside of it. You point to it and tell me that it's not empty, even though I can't see anything inside of it. We are both pointing at an empty box.

God exists on some other plane of reality that we cannot detect with any instruments, even though we have methods for detecting all sorts of phenomena that we cannot detect with our own senses. God hides from us (excepting those occasions when he taps us on the shoulder and then ducks behind a couch) even though acknowledging his existence is the most important thing we can possible ever do. God arbitrarily confuses the minds of people so that they either believe, think they believe, aren't sure if they believe, or don't believe... but he is a kind and benevolent and loving being, a creature of pure justice. He's there, you just can't see him. And it's your fault.

[downbeatplumb]

How did I work out there is no god?

Because its a silly idea that has nothing going for it in the way of evidence.