God from the Investigation of Existence

[psyche101]

On 18/03/2018 at 10:18 AM, Crazy Horse said:

Compared with one plant who feels loved, and that one who doesn't?

This is proved..

One plant is loved, taken care of, the other plant isn't, and guess what? The plant that is loved, is much better then the other plant that never took.

 

So what, that's instinct. 

Ultrasound, with frequencies higher than those the average person can hear, may enhance seed germination. Experiments on chrysanthemums suggest that audible sound can alter levels of growth hormones in cells.

What's more, the roots of maize seedlings appear to turn towards sounds at a certain frequency. Researchers in Korea have also found that some frequencies increase the expression of some genes.

Now top that off with the fact we exhale carbon dioxide, which is what pants thrive on. 

Might plants react favourably to our attentions? Sure  but I'm not seeing mystery there. I see plenty of valid explanation. 

[psyche101]

On 18/03/2018 at 10:28 AM, Crazy Horse said:

What knowledge does an atheist have, compared to a Believer?

Depends on the atheist, that's not what I said. Read it again. I said new atheism is supported by knowledge and it is. All the sciences support the conclusion of a natural universe, not a created one. 

[psyche101]

On 18/03/2018 at 11:09 AM, joc said:

As I ...and I am thinking probably you as well...know, the experience of Jesus is one of Conviction...a human emotion..bolstered by the 'feeling' ...a certain chemical reaction in the brain...of a certain type that is driven by adrenaline and dopamine in the brain...and because of these chemical reactions...some believe that Jesus ....is their personal saviour...this chemical reaction is a drug induced stupor which can only be duplicated by the same...'conviction'...that happens when one gives one's self over to the 'spirit'.   But it is also quite provable that these chemical reactions are exactly that...and can be duplicated by...a ...religious...experience.  Which is why ...those who believe they know, not only Know that they Know...they know because of the Experience that which they know they know...and..like a drug addict...seek this experience over and over, through worship services designed to embellish this experience as much as it can be embellished.

 

I just don't understand why religious people think their belief system is a valid alternative to scientific discovery. Its not. As I tried to point out to CS, its a discussion not a debate on all levels. If a religious view was supported by any factual information then it would be a debate but that's not the case. We don't see lectures in the possibility of God creating the universe, we don't have textbooks that illustrate creation, no discoveries support the view of intelligent design. It's not a real debate, there is nothing to support a religious view. 

Its a discussion at best, heated sure, passionate sure, but religion lacks the real world support for this clash to actually be considered a debate in any real sense of the term. 

Some people like American cars, some like Japanese cars, it's more that sort of discussion. 

[psyche101]

22 hours ago, Crazy Horse said:

So what knowledge of the afterlife do you actually have?

 

There is no afterlife so there is no knowledge to have of it. 

What i do know is that the mind is the brain, the brain is made of atoms and that we know how atoms work. I know that billions of neural and synaptic connections make up what is essentially 'you' and that there is no natural way to maintain that intricate pattern during the process of decay, which we also know begins minutes after death occurs. I know physics can measure any force and has done so from weak natural forces to strong one's, and that nothing as weak as a natural force is associated with our consciousness or brains, and if such a force existed and was so weak we could not detect it that it would not be capable of maintaining that intricate connections in the brain that makes a person what they are. 

So what I do know is that despite claims of an afterlife, there is no evidence whatsoever to support the claim, and that logic goes against it considering the knowledge we have. This leaves us with two options. Either some mysterious force has managed to evade every experiment and observation across recorded history and works in ways we'll beyond our comprehension 

OR

People hallucinate when they are nearly dead. 

What we know supports the simple conclusion here, it's just the most likely option. Death is final. No matter how hard you close your eyes and wish otherwise. 

[psyche101]

21 hours ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

So atheism is ''incontrovertibly true'' and everything else is necesserely false.

I'm really confused. 

I honestly did not think anyone on earth was really this thick, but you seem to be proving me wrong. 

For the umpteenth time now,  maybe copy and paste this to a sticky note on your desktop as you seem to forget this about every 5 minutes when your world view blocks the facts, 

Its the best fit to the data. 

Not like I have not said that many times, probably mies than 100 times, and I suspect at least 60% of those responses would have been for your shortsighted benefit. 

Its the best fit to the data

Religious views are outdated philosophies that have been falsified. 

If it's not best fit to the data, that has not been illustrated, and posting dust jackets on a regular basis doesn't change that either 

Honestly you must be repeating yourself ad nauseum to annoy me? I seriously don't anyone is that thick headed and forgetful. Is this your new tactic or something? If not, then you are a shining example as to how religious people have been robbed of any abilty to think at all. 

21 hours ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

Isn't that the definition of fundamentalism?

No, your just being deliberately obtuse. Well either that or you really do have a real condition that requires attention concerning short term memory. 

Perhaps you should consult one of your creationist heroes like Jonathan Wells to confirm your own bias there? 

Best fit to the data, remember the sticky note. 

Best fit, got it now? As determined by predictability and observation as well as repeatability upon demand 

Why do you think your barstardised personal version of religion would be relevant to anything other than your own world view? 

21 hours ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

You seem to be very literal-minded, pretending to be the bearer of the sole source of objective truth. I think this kind of exclusivity can lead to dangerous grounds.

And I think I that despite explanations regarding what is best fit to the data, your will only ever hear your own interpretations. This to me means religion has left you incapable of seeing a view other than your own. Again, you make religion look silly and obtuse. You damage the already shady reputation religion has. 

There is no evidence at all supporting the religious outlook. I know you want that to change for you own reasons of needing to feel important but it remains opinion. Facts are not going to change just so you can feel better about yourself. 

And you have not bought that dictionary yet obviously. 

Best fit to the data, try and remember that one next time you confuse yourself and drag others into your personal quagmire. 

[Only_]

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

Religious views are outdated philosophies that have been falsified. 

I

That's an opinion, not a 'fact'. I do think you are confused, indeed.

Quote

Best fit to the data, try and remember that one next time you confuse yourself and drag others into your personal quagmire. 

An I can find you many scientists who argue that the God theory, ultimately 'best fit the data'.

 

Edited March 19, 2018 by Clockwork_Spirit

[Only_]

3 hours ago, XenoFish said:

If you were never told of god, nor had any sources on god. Would you believe? Without an external input from others. 

It's a process. We have probably been asking 'why' since the beginning of the earliest spark of human consciousness. Mysteries tickle us, and we humans are natural mystery solvers. It’s the trait that drives invention and exploration. We are driven to know.  Even skeptics agree that there is a beginning for every created thing, including man. So, in order for man to have a beginning, there must be a “first cause” that existed before him. That's how humans came to the conclusion of God and personal experience/revelation back this up. I see it that way, too.

Edited March 19, 2018 by Clockwork_Spirit

[psyche101]

13 minutes ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

That's an opinion, not a 'fact'. I do think you are confused, indeed.

No it's fact your confused, God did not make Adam from dirt and eve from his rib, we are the product of evolution, God did not 'let there be light' it took around 400,000 years before there was light, God did not create the heavens and the earth, gravity did. 

All these old philosophies have been bettered with real world knowledge. 

Quote

An I can find you many scientists who argue that the God theory, ultimately 'best fit the data'.

 

Like that whack job Jonathan Wells yeah? 

Yes some of them have an opinion, none of them can show its best for for the data. That's why if you walk into a lecture on the origins of the universe you don't hear God theories competing with physics, we have physics competing with physics. There are no religious theories supported by any evidence. There are some nuts ranting on YouTube and some clowns writing paperbacks. That's it. If there really was validity to those fundamentalist dogmatic rants, then we could attend lectures on them and read papers written on them. 

You let me know when MIT or CALTECH has a lecture on the role of religious creation and we will take this up again  at that point. In the meantime I suggest you start reading the posts you reply to and invest in a dictionary. 

Edited March 19, 2018 by psyche101

[psyche101]

1 minute ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

We have probably been asking 'why' since the beginning of the earliest spark of human consciousness. Mysteries tickle us, and we humans are natural mystery solvers. It’s the trait that drives invention and exploration. We are driven to know.  Even skeptics agree that there is a beginning for every created thing, including man. So, in order for man to have a beginning, there must be a “first cause” that existed before him. That's how humans came to the logical conclusion of God.

That's how we came up with Thor's hammer for thunder and zeus throwing lightning bolts. Time this current God was retired to better evidence as the greek and roman gods were. 

[Only_]

13 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

 That's why if you walk into a lecture on the origins of the universe you don't hear God theories competing with physics, we have physics competing with physics. There are no religious theories supported by any evidence.

Science doesn't weight on the question of God and neither on religion.

I think you need some education on the topic:

[LINK Berkeley.edu] Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

[LINK Berkeley.edu] Science and religion: Reconcilable differences

 

Edited March 19, 2018 by Clockwork_Spirit

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

Science doesn't weight on the question of God and neither on religion.

Because there is nothing to weigh in on. Just like Unicorns or leprechauns, God is in the same category. It's really that simple and the reason why there are no lectures on a created universe in established academic institutions. Might as well ask science which closet the bogeyman is in. 

Quote

I think you need some education on the topic:

I think you need some education full stop. 

Quote

[LINK Berkeley.edu] Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

That says just what I did. 

Religion is a choice, it's not a result or conclusion. See this bit in your link? 

 

For many, such questions are matters of personal faith and spirituality. 

Ive told you exactly that many times. Far too many times for you to have forgotten, your being deliberately obtuse again. 

Quote

 

[LINK Berkeley.edu] Science and religion: Reconcilable differences

 

When religion is used as a moral control pass or such by some scientists it does not conflict, when it tries to answer questions about creation, then we have conflict as science errodes religious doctrine. 

Just like it says in your link. 

 

This is not to suggest that science and religion never come into conflict. Though the two generally deal with different realms (natural vs. spiritual), disagreements do arise about where the boundaries between these realms lie when dealing with questions at their interface. And sometimes, one side crosses a boundary in its claims. For example, when religious tenets make strong claims about the natural world (e.g., claiming that the world was created in six days, as some literal interpretations of the Bible might require), faith and science can find themselves in conflict. 

 

Seriously man, your just tripping over yourself. 

Edited March 19, 2018 by psyche101

[+joc]

8 hours ago, psyche101 said:

I just don't understand why religious people think their belief system is a valid alternative to scientific discovery. Its not. As I tried to point out to CS, its a discussion not a debate on all levels. If a religious view was supported by any factual information then it would be a debate but that's not the case. We don't see lectures in the possibility of God creating the universe, we don't have textbooks that illustrate creation, no discoveries support the view of intelligent design. It's not a real debate, there is nothing to support a religious view. 

Its a discussion at best, heated sure, passionate sure, but religion lacks the real world support for this clash to actually be considered a debate in any real sense of the term. 

Some people like American cars, some like Japanese cars, it's more that sort of discussion. 

It can never be a discussion.  Let me ask you a question.  How do you feel?  (it's a rhetorical question) The difference between Religion and Science is that Religion is something you 'know' based on feelings.  Science is something you know based on thinking.

Consider this:  Thomas Edison created light.  He didn't say...Let there be light and there was light.  He created light after scientifically, methodically, documenting ten thousand different substances he had tried as a filament.  He didn't feel that horse hair would work, he didn't feel that butterfly antennae would work...he thought he would eliminate what did and what didn't.  That is science...that is thinking.  But does he get credit for creating light? No. Because there is no 'feeling' attached to his light.  Even though every church in the world has light bulbs.  When we flip on the switch...there is light.  That light never existed before.  

I know... 

But if you took a flashlight into the Congo for instance...and showed it to completely isolated natives...they would pray to you!  They would think you were a God.   Because they could not even begin to understand how you could create light any other way.   

That in a nut shell is religion.   No explanation for the Universe around us existing other than...God.  I hear the argument over and over again how the mere fact that we exist proves God.   It is Feelings vs Thought Process.  How do you feel?  vs  What do you think?   I went to a church service with my family on Christmas Eve.  The speaker proved that Jesus was the son of God.  He said, Think of all the grains of sand on the beach.  Now, paint one grain of sand red.  Those are the odds.  The odds of one man, born of a virgin, crucified and then resurrected...you see, that is how we know Jesus is the son of God.  

...and I am thinking...No, that one red grain of sand on the beach represents the impossibility of the premise...not the conformation of it.   There is no logical thought process when it comes to religion.  It's all about 'feelings'.  How can there be a discussion about how one feels?  Put another way....A religious experience is all about 'feelings'.   A scientific breakthrough is all about 'thinking' put into scientific method.  

[oslove]

Dear colleagues here, time to bring you guys to the OP [below in Annex], so that you will be re-oriented correctly, instead of vagabonding everywhere, except keeping focused to the OP.

Now, a lot of you who replied to me kept drumming that I am not doing any argument, but you are not thinking as to see an argument when one is looking straight into your eyeballs.

The thread is on “God from the Investigation of Existence.”

Now, a decent argument must first state the proposition to be advanced by the proponent, i.e. yours truly, Oslove.

Next, the definitions of the important terms in the proposition, in our case: God, existence.

That is why I say that you guys are always into evading, because no one here has contributed any additions to or subtractions from my concept of existence, and my concept of God.

Here, I will bring forth from the OP my definitions of the two terms:

Here is my concept of what is existence:

Existence is what we experience with our senses in particular our consciousness, for example we experience the nose in our face, babies, roses, the sun in the sky at daytime and the moon in the sky at night, they all are instances of existence: and it is by our senses and in particular our consciousness that we come to know what is existence.

Here is my concept of God:

God in concept is first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

So, prove that you are NOT essentially into evasions from the thread, produce your definitions of existence and God.

 

Annex

    Posted February 11  2018 #1

    Dear colleagues here, my purpose is to get your reactions on my idea that man, that is you and me, does come to the existence of God from examining what is existence.

    So, first we must work as to concur on the concept of existence and the concept of God.

    Here is my concept of what is existence:

    Existence is what we experience with our senses in particular our consciousness, for example we experience the nose in our face, babies, roses, the sun in the sky at daytime and the moon in the sky at night, they all are instances of existence: and it is by our senses and in particular our consciousness that we come to know what is existence.

    Here is my concept of God:

    God in concept is first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

    There, what do you, dear colleagues here, think of my thinking in this first post of the thread?

[Rlyeh]

God isn't found in studying the natural universe, he's found in dogma written by men.

[eight bits]

Clockwork

Quote

An I can find you many scientists who argue that the God theory, ultimately 'best fit the data'.

And a lot of scientists (regrettably) forget to correct crude "best fit" metrics for different degrees of freedom among the competing models. The more degrees of freedom, the better the fit to any data, independent of the other merits of the model.

Godidit has infinite degrees of freedom. Capital-G God can do anything that can happen. Godidit fits the data perfectly, any data, every time.

Unfortunately, one of the things God did was to make Satan the god of this world. So anything that can happen here (including observing something else supposedly happening elsewhere in the cosmos) can be equally well explained by Satan did it. Satandidit fits the data perfectly, any data, every time.

Thank God and Satan that like many people, I have been redeemed by the Truth of South Park, especially the canonical holy first movie. (There are, of course, heretics who follow the much later Book of Mormon, the so-called "South Park musical." I pray for them daily.) I have seen with my own eyes that Satan has appointed the spirit of Sadam Hussein his plenipotentiary in this world.

Now, anything that can happen here can equally be well explained by Sadam Hussein did it. Sadamdidit fits the data perfectly, any data, every time. PLUS, I've got the video to prove it. Pix, so it must have happened.

-

@Clockwork_Spirit

Edited March 20, 2018 by eight bits

[Stubbly_Dooright]

@oslove

Quote

{{Here is my concept of what is existence:

Existence is what we experience with our senses in particular our consciousness, for example we experience the nose in our face, babies, roses, the sun in the sky at daytime and the moon in the sky at night, they all are instances of existence: and it is by our senses and in particular our consciousness that we come to know what is existence.}}

-- That is obvious, yes. I would think we all (or most of us) would agree. 
....  Ok, we have that first part down.

Quote

{{Here is my concept of God:

God in concept is first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.}}

........  Now, this is where you will not have total agreements. Because, as oppose to our existence, in which we all can actually see and so forth, God, and God being the creator, cannot be readily accessible in seeing and so forth as truthfully being the creator cause of everything with a beginning. We all can prove our existence, how can it be proven that there is a God, and that he created it all to everyone?

Do you see what I'm saying and why I'm saying it? 

You have an objective based outlook and using as proof from a subjective based outlook. Since you can prove that there is existence, you need to prove that God is the creator of it all including existence, in the same way, the same manner!! In an objective based outlook. Meaning, there is proof that he is definitely there in the same manner that our existence is. 

What you seem to present in all, from my point of view, is something that seems to leave out something important to link up your first point to your second point. 

 
How can there be evasion to something that is not being presented, ie: the proof of God's existence and that he is the creator. 
You think there is a God creator, but that is your outlook. I think there isn't a God in the manner that people perceive God, because I was raised secular, and have had no idea of there being a God, because I didn't see it in my first many years of life. But yes, in those first many years of life, I definitely have proof of my existence, because I saw and was aware of my existence. But the only proof to the start of my existence, I only saw my mother and my father. There was my proof of the reason of my existence, my parents. 
So, if I did not have the actual proof of God and God being the creator, how would think I would link something I never saw or noticed growing up, to why I am here? 
Maybe, if you put yourself in the shoes of those who don't believe, and see how you can prove to them the existence and proof of God, in the manner that they can see him, than maybe you can  show them how God is linked to existence of everyone and everything. 
You need to prove that God is on the same ideal objective outlook as existence is. And I don't see how you can, when I can't help in seeing it as not being on the same level. 
Existence= Definitely proven to everyone
God(Creator)= Not showing over all proof of his existence and that he's responsible for said existence. 

I'm sorry, but to me, it looks like to me, you're evading. I see that you're evading from showing proof of God to show how it can be simplistically and understandingly be proven that he is responsible for our existence. You need to link the second part to the first part logically. Having everyone sit there and constantly reflect on their existence is not going to give the answer that it was created by God. And considering, it is usually a mother and father, or was told a mother and a father brought on their existence, that will be the go to reasoning for their existence. 
I think, you need to stop making excuses and start looking outside your box, if you really want everyone to see what you're trying to do. 
 

[Guyver]

19 hours ago, oslove said:

 

The thread is on “God from the Investigation of Existence.”

Existence is what we experience with our senses in particular our consciousness, for example we experience the nose in our face, babies, roses, the sun in the sky at daytime and the moon in the sky at night, they all are instances of existence: and it is by our senses and in particular our consciousness that we come to know what is existence.

 

Here is my concept of God:

 

God in concept is first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

 

So, prove that you are NOT essentially into evasions ....

I  accept your definitions of God and existence for the purpose of discussion.  

The problem is, and I’m sorry to say that this discussion has been done so many times and there’s only one outcome.  Since the existence of God cannot be proven, even though a necessary cause can be, everyone will leave this discussion with the same beliefs they had going into it.

In other words, many rational people will accept a necessary cause for our existence, but they won’t necessarily accept God as that cause because God cannot be shown to exist.

 

[psyche101]

On 19/03/2018 at 2:33 PM, Clockwork_Spirit said:

Science doesn't weight on the question of God and neither on religion.

I think you need some education on the topic

 

On 19/03/2018 at 2:08 PM, Clockwork_Spirit said:

An I can find you many scientists who argue that the God theory, ultimately 'best fit the data'.

 

LOL make your mind up. I'm confused you reckon??? 

[psyche101]

On 19/03/2018 at 8:52 PM, joc said:

It can never be a discussion.  Let me ask you a question.  How do you feel?  (it's a rhetorical question) The difference between Religion and Science is that Religion is something you 'know' based on feelings.  Science is something you know based on thinking.

Consider this:  Thomas Edison created light.  He didn't say...Let there be light and there was light.  He created light after scientifically, methodically, documenting ten thousand different substances he had tried as a filament.  He didn't feel that horse hair would work, he didn't feel that butterfly antennae would work...he thought he would eliminate what did and what didn't.  That is science...that is thinking.  But does he get credit for creating light? No. Because there is no 'feeling' attached to his light.  Even though every church in the world has light bulbs.  When we flip on the switch...there is light.  That light never existed before.  

I know... 

But if you took a flashlight into the Congo for instance...and showed it to completely isolated natives...they would pray to you!  They would think you were a God.   Because they could not even begin to understand how you could create light any other way.   

That in a nut shell is religion.   No explanation for the Universe around us existing other than...God.  I hear the argument over and over again how the mere fact that we exist proves God.   It is Feelings vs Thought Process.  How do you feel?  vs  What do you think?   I went to a church service with my family on Christmas Eve.  The speaker proved that Jesus was the son of God.  He said, Think of all the grains of sand on the beach.  Now, paint one grain of sand red.  Those are the odds.  The odds of one man, born of a virgin, crucified and then resurrected...you see, that is how we know Jesus is the son of God.  

...and I am thinking...No, that one red grain of sand on the beach represents the impossibility of the premise...not the conformation of it.   There is no logical thought process when it comes to religion.  It's all about 'feelings'.  How can there be a discussion about how one feels?  Put another way....A religious experience is all about 'feelings'.   A scientific breakthrough is all about 'thinking' put into scientific method.  

But that's exactly why it can only be discussion. It's not a real debate because there is nothing supporting a religious outlook to debate, only personal views. They can be pleasent or heated discussions but the definition of debate doesn't breach that. 

And that why when a university lecture happens, we discuss physics, not God it's never 'was it a big bang or was it god, let's examine the evidence' because evidence doesn't exist for God. We not only created thousands of gods, with today's personal take on religion, I'd propose we now have billions of God's. 

[VastLand]

On 3/18/2018 at 6:39 PM, psyche101 said:

Yes it can from chemical biology. The Urey Miller experiment shows us this process. 

Unless that non-life (biochemical) had life in it. Could be the only reason why an energetic transfer occured.

19 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

And that why when a university lecture happens, we discuss physics, not God it's never 'was it a big bang or was it god, let's examine the evidence' because evidence doesn't exist for God. We not only created thousands of gods, with today's personal take on religion, I'd propose we now have billions of God's. 

These kinds of departments and viewpoints for physics is lacking dramatically in our modern Erra. Why do I say this? Everything is purposely compartmentalized because this profits better control, and management of the staff. All of it is based around Funding and Monetary means, and thus people's mind's are not geared in an Imaginative, out of box, or Honest sense. The division is destroying our bridge to see greater things.

Unlike a Physicist who claims a big bang occurred that started from an Infinitesimally small point which exploded into the current stars, I rather see it differently. Time and Space are Illusions of Experience, and if we break that thought process we understand that though a source point did "bang" an expression of stars in the heavens, this point did not fall apart like a particle, or disappear, you just do not perceive him with your time based thought process. If you could watch a reel back to Billions maybe Trillions, maybe Infinite years ago, you would see He is still in his abode comfortably alive. Now as for every star, they have what is called a zero point and do not just die out with lack of fuel constantly, rather there is a zero point which also is Infinitesimally small and yet is Infinitely larger than you perceive. What is space? a vacuum? perhaps it is filled with a substance that is either vacuumed into a black whole or rises to the stars. Life is not what it may seem.

Edited March 21, 2018 by Blaye Otanka
Literacy

[VastLand]

Existence, and Deity can be proven to someone on a personal scale by Experience and Wisdom, it is just rather some people do not understand another persons perspective and so are inclined to readily disbelieve that other person.

Edited March 21, 2018 by Blaye Otanka

[Davros of Skaro]

28 minutes ago, Blaye Otanka said:

Existence, and Deity can be proven to someone on a personal scale by Experience and Wisdom, it is just rather some people do not understand another persons perspective and so are inclined to readily disbelieve that other person.

It's just Emotionist Imaginationism that leads one to God belief. The circular logic acts as a pillar for faith.

[VastLand]

With the realization of Atomic calculators, Crystals that store data, Energy that interacts with intelligence, A cycle to all of time/space's motion, and etc..., then you begin to understand there is something called divine law. Everything is founded upon the same construct, and those things that can not retain this data fall into disrepair.

Energy is conscious, without the Neurons in your head firing, what computer would you have to operate? Rather those who find the truth only allow the Emotion of Love to enter their mind, and the disregard of division, and to come with the mind of a serpent (wisdom) in order to properly view existance. Yes the mind very well has to imagine what it believes to understand it, but this does not mean that the Neurons emitting Energy did not come from a real place. Certainly without the initial push, or the first ripple of water, there would be no Energetic transfer. It is known by I, that Energy has a point, and that point is the law, and this one is conscious. Who is to say that the Photon that entered the water, became Kinetic, and rose as vapor to again become a Photon in the Aurora Borealis did not imagine what it was doing?

 

Imagination is an important part of any belief, even in that of Physics, for if you could not imagine it, then who is to say you would accept a blank number? Imagination was enabled by an energetic transfer in your computer, which has functions also organized by Energy. We are dependent upon a source, your imagination of that energy was energetically firing in your head, but will you look inside and grasp it? 

Edited March 21, 2018 by Blaye Otanka
Literacy

[Guyver]

It’s not that easy to grasp.

[Only_]

3 hours ago, psyche101 said:

 

LOL make your mind up. I'm confused you reckon??? 

These scientists approach the question from a metaphysical perspective, based on the evidence of science.

But again, you fail to make the distinction.

Edited March 21, 2018 by Clockwork_Spirit