Scientific proof of God's existence.

Theology, Religious Studies, religion, god, faith and other topics of a spiritual nature.

Scientific proof of God's existence.

Postby MrMikeludo on July 17th, 2017, 3:23 pm 

Hello everyone, my name is Michael Ludovici, and the concept that I would like to address is my postulation that there can exist a scientific, and mathematically verifiable proof for verifying the existence of a God, and/or – more specifically, the Mind of God made manifest, and the Eternal Harmony, as was proposed by various scientists, and mathematicians all throughout history, such as Michio Kaku, as he proposed:

“Michio Kaku – the Mind of God, which Einstein wrote eloquently about, is a cosmic symphony (of superstrings) resonating through hyperspace...”

So, my proposition is that, in order to become capable of cognizing the Mind of God, and/or the Eternal Harmony – actually functioning as the real “cosmic symphony” which Michio Kaku is referring to, and/or the function of a cognizable 4 dimensional space/time continuum, actually effectually functioning as a cognizable representation of Einstein's 4 dimensional space/time, it is necessary to explain the introduction of a new type of calculus, trigonometry, and projective geometry, which is an extension of non Euclidean projective geometry, or an extension of Maxwell's Equations:

“And God Said, 'Let There Be Light' - The equations show the key to understanding how electric and magnetic fields interact to create light - the 'Maxwell Equations' - He had shown all his field vectors, using the general quaternion form - The imaginary prefixes i, j, and k are the imaginary rotations from the x, y and z axes respectively - Michio Kaku, describes his relief when he learned that Kaluza had collapsed the Maxwell Equations into a single equation by merely treating time as the fourth (temporal) dimension and assuming a fourth (spatial) dimension. This is known as the relativistic form of the Maxwell equations - Einstein demonstrated that the connection between electromagnetism and gravity could be shown if we simply look at gravity from the perspective of a fourth spatial dimension...” Larry Simpson

So, another way to understand the God connection, to the existence of four dimensional space/time, or the Mind of God made manifest, preceding Maxwell's field equations, is to remember Plato proposing the concept, simplified - in his Timaeus, which was this:

“The universe, Plato proposes, is the product of a divine, purposive, and beneficent agency. It is the handiwork of a divine Craftsman, who, imitating an unchanging and eternal model, imposes a mathematical order on a preexistent chaos to generate the ordered universe...”

Replicating Genesis:

“And God said 'Let there be light,' and there was light...”

Ok, so this is what the mathematical proof demonstrates: That before the existence of the applied function of Time made manifest – four dimensional space/time, and or this:

“Einstein's relativity transformed space and time from a passive background in which events take place to active participants in the dynamics of the cosmos – according to relativity, the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe and of time itself...” Stephen Hawking

And/or this:

“Space, Mach argued, is not a thing, but an expression of interrelationships among events – Einstein agreed, and was encouraged to write a theory that built time and space out of events alone – Einstein had replaced Newton's space with a network of light beams – Theirs was the absolute grid, within which space itself became (manifest)...” Timothy Ferris

And/or this:

“Back to basics – how did space get its dimensions – In the beginning, the universe – was ruled by just one single super-force. Instead of a smattering of different particles, there was only the tiny primordial mass – the grandmother of all particles, ready to explode in the Big Bang – Then came the detonation. This scientific creation story seems to account for everything, with one glaring exception – Where did the the dimensions come from – Though the idea is still in a very preliminary form, some physicists are intrigued by the implication that reality may have started with just a single dimension: time...” George Johnson

Ok, so this is the postulation: In order for there to exist four dimensional space/time, and/or our “ordered universe,” there must have been a “divine craftsman” (as Plato defined it), to have “purposefully rearranged” the “chaos” that existed, into an actual “cosmic symphony,” and/or mathematically verifiable four dimensional space/time – the Eternal Harmony, and, most importantly, there must have existed a “composer,” who purposefully effectuated the “point time zero,” which must have PRECEEDED the function of Time made manifest, and which is the most important function demonstrated within the “four dimensional math,” that I am introducing.

Ok, also to simplify the communication, we should approach it from a reductionist viewpoint (again to simplify the introduction), while emphasizing the understanding that there are no images of any things within our three dimensional minds, but only this:

“...The provinces of the brain are topographical maps of the sensory fields which they represent, the same geometrical decorum applies to all projections, physical events impinging upon the sensory surface are translated into the characteristic digital language of the brain...”

And again:

"The equivalent of the machine language of the brain, in (Alan) Gavin's view, is very complex electromagnetic field configurations...(And) after several years of painstaking mapping of these physic never-never lands, (Gavin) discovered an extraordinary thing: The mind of man contains only so many visions; four recurrent geometrical forms..." Judith Hooper -The3-pound Universe.

And, that the very definition of reality – four dimensional space/time, the Mind of God, and the cosmic symphony, and/or “music,” and “life,” is patterns in space/time:

"One way to think about this view is to imagine spatial relationships as a kind of universal language that the brain uses no matter what specific language - social, moral, engineering, poetic, we are using at the moment...(George) Lakoff believes that he can tie this mental language to the physical structure of the brain and its maps: 'When you think about dynamic structure, you begin to realize that there are a lot of things that are analogous with life, (but) life is more patterns in space/time than it is a set of particular physical things." Jim Jubank - In The Image Of The Brain

Ok, so to begin with, I would like to provide a link to my demonstration of the visual equivalent, of: E=Mc2, and/or the actual finished four dimensional space/time continuum – the Mind of God, and/or the Eternal Harmony – cosmic symphony, already produced, again, which is actually capable of effectually functioning as a real, cognizable – and again, “effectual,” two dimensional pictorial representation of the Mind of god, which you can see @ 11:40:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7Qpz_bETjQ&t=840s

Ok, so that is the actual, mathematically verifiable proof, while remembering, there is no such thing as proving something abstractly:

“Proofs are not abstract. There is no such thing as proving something abstractly – One can, of course, define a class of abstract entities and call them 'proof,' but those 'proofs' can not verify mathematical statements because no one can see them – Facts can not be understood just by being summarized in a formula, any more than being listed on paper or committed to memory – our best theories embody deep explanations as well as accurate predictions. For example, the theory of relativity explains gravity in terms of a new, 4-dimensional geometry, what makes it so important, is that it explains the fabric or reality itself...” David Deutsch

Ok, so, again, that is the “proof,” and here is the introduction of the “new math:”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAYhTIQ8mgI&t=1s

And part 2:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9cIkjCuzF8

And part 3:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aQrSgMh4Ro&t=31s

So, that is the basic introduction for the primary concepts that I wish to address, in regards to mathematically proving the existence of a God, the Mind of God, the Eternal Harmony – a cosmic symphony, a Kingdom of Heaven, and a cognizable four dimensional space/time continuum, actually effectually functioning as a real, cognizable function.

But I would also like to a second method for proving the existence of a God, by, first, proving that Jesus of Nazareth was, most probably, the Son of god, and which would – of course, also, and simultaneously, prove the existence of a God.

And the way I propose to do that, is the same exact way we prove “evolution” by applying the laws of probability, and by correlating what Jesus “taught” with modern day science, physics, neuroscience, mathematics, and history.

Such as this - Correlating Jesus of Nazareth saying this:

“Asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God was to come, he gave them this answer, 'The kingdom of God does not admit of observation and there will be no one to say, 'Look here! Look there! For, you must know, the kingdom of God is within you.” Luke 17: 20-21

Correlated with this science:

“Each of us lives within the universe - the prison - of his own brain. Projecting from it are millions of fragile sensory nerve fibers, in groups uniquely adapted to sample the energetic states of the world around us: heat, light, force, and chemical composition. That is all we ever know of it directly; all else is logical inference.” Vernon Benjamin Mountcastle

You see, with that correlation – correlating what Jesus taught with 2oth century science, we've begun to increase the probability, already, that Jesus of Nazareth was/is the Son of God, ergo – there must exist a God.
MrMikeludo
Banned User
 
Posts: 225
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: Scientific proof of God's existence.

Postby BadgerJelly on July 18th, 2017, 4:58 am 

You've not stated what you mean by "God" as far as I can see. When it comes to Einstein and Kaku they generally refer to "God" as some underlying and unknown substrate right? They are not referring to some conscious being.

If you wish to propose some "higher form of consciousness" I would have to argue that we cannot really call it "consciousness" because it is not the same, or even similar, to our "consciousness". As a more explicit example of this problem we can say that grass is a living organism and so are humans. We are most certainly not the same although we share some basic similarities.

If the term "God" is being used as a premise for the "underlying 'laws'/'rules' of the universe" then we can as scientists be more willing to accept this definition rather than refer to some omnipotent conscious being (makes no sense) or else we could possibly refer the term "God" to a more God-like being, some super intelligent alien from another world.

Some written words saying "let there be light" is not necessarily a description of the Big Bang nor the principles of physics. Inference doe snot really do much to help your claim (whatever it is).

Personally I think these kinds of passages about creation in many religious texts tends to look a lot like me to conscious experience being described, being born into the world (also there is the obvious case in Christianity of taking from Plato's ideas and his Cave Analogy). Another line of inquiry I have pursued here is in looking at altered states of consciousness, and there are many similarities there too. I cannot say any of these things are "proofs" though, only theories that relate to what little we know about human behavior, mythology, anthropology, psychology and some smatterings of neuroscience.

So to start with please give a definition of what you mean by "God" here. To me it refers to a certain very human concept and I tend toward a Jungian view of this in reference to his idea of Archetypes. Meaning we all have a "God" concept, so to speak, yet we frame it differently and may never actually refer to this innate concept as "God" in the form of an external being or a conscious entity of any kind. In this sense "God" to some I am happy to accept as merely being their "will", their personal subjective "being" framed as an active substance in the universe/brain. It is here I can perhaps see some similarities to what you are trying to express only I feel you are expressing things within the frame of mysticism. I don't mind mysticism, but it doesn't offer proofs only an exploration/creativity.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4319
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Scientific proof of God's existence.

Postby MrMikeludo on July 18th, 2017, 8:11 am 

BadgerJelly:

Part of my thesis, is to define consciousness – uniquely human consciousness, in an ipso facto way as well, as well as the ipso facto degradation of that same consciousness.

So, what is consciousness – uniquely human consciousness, and how can it become degraded within human beings?

Ok, so to repeat, we can now validate the scientific fact that there actually exists “no images of things” within our uniquely human three dimensional electrical potential minds:

“...The provinces of the brain are topographical maps of the sensory fields which they represent, the same geometrical decorum applies to all projections, physical events impinging upon the sensory surface are translated into the characteristic digital language of the brain...”

"The equivalent of the machine language of the brain, in (Alan) Gavin's view, is very complex electromagnetic field configurations...(And) after several years of painstaking mapping of these physic never-never lands, (Gavin) discovered an extraordinary thing: The mind of man contains only so many visions; four recurrent geometrical forms..." Judith Hooper -The3-pound Universe

And that the very definition of reality, is the universally applicable a priori laws of nature made manifest, effectually functioning as space/time, and/or Time made manifest:

“Wending Through Time, a Cosmic Web – The cosmic web, though it is little known outside of the circle of cosmologists who study it, it is a central part of explanations of how the force of gravity has created all the structure in the cosmos – 'It's the cartography of the universe,' says Dr. Wayne Hu, a cosmologist at the University of Chicago - 'It's pretty clear that if you could see the cosmic web in its full glory, it would be quite visually stunning,' said Dr. Craig Hogan, an astrophysicist at the University of Washington – 'And it's the thematic tapestry that links a whole series of recent astronomical discoveries involving various epochs of cosmic history – 'It's the largest scale on which structures exist today,' said Dr. Adrian Melott, an astrophysicist at the University of Kansas, adding that the pattern was simply a reflection of the laws of gravity...” James Glanz

Again, functioning as Time made manifest, and a priori – as preexisting omni-dimensional reality, but while also effectually functioning as a simultaneously functioning quantum mechanical whole:

“unfinished symphony – Strings may do what Einstein failed to do – tie together two great irreconcilable ideas of 20th century physics – Einstein had become obsessed by the dream of producing a unified field theory – In so doing, Einstein had hoped to resolve the conflict between two competing visions of the universe: the smooth continuum of space/time, where stars and planets reign, as described by general theory of relativity, and the unseemingly jitteriness of the submicroscopic quantum world, where particles hold sway – The equations of general relativity simply can't handle such a situation, where the laws of cause and effect seem to break down and particles jump from point A to point B without going through the space in between – 'In string theory,' says Dr. Brian Greene, 'We're still trying to figure out that central nugget of truth' – In 1995, Edward Witten said that super symmetric string theories represent different approximations of a deeper, underlying theory. He called it M theory – 'The M in M theory stands for many things,' says Witten, including matrix, mystery and magic – Which shapes represent the fundamental structures in our universe – On this point, string theorists are currently clueless. For the world conjured into existence by M theory is so exotic that scientists are being forced to work not just at the frontier of physics but at the frontier of mathematics as well...” J. Madeline Nash

Ok, so we can now know, for a scientific fact, the (almost) complete a priori simultaneously relative function (as Time made manifest), of all of simultaneously relative omni-dimensional reality, from the “largest” scale – functioning as the cosmic “web,” and/or simultaneously relative onmi-dimensional space/time, to the “smallest” scale – functioning as quantum mechanics, and/or the very “foundation” of the onmi-dimensional space/time cosmic web universe, actually functioning as, proposed, super symmetrical superstring theory, and/or M theory, ok.

And now, because of advances in neuroscience, we can “prove” that this is the very beginning of uniquely human consciousness:

“One thing has become clear to scientists: memory is absolutely crucial to our consciousness. Says Janellen Huttenlocher, a professor of psychology at the University of Chicago: There's almost nothing you do, from perception to thinking, that doesn't draw continuously on your memory. It can't be otherwise, since there's really no such thing as the present. As you read this sentence, the sentence that went before is already a second or two in the past; the first line of this story went by minutes ago. Yet without a memory of what's been said, none of what you are now reading makes the slightest sense. The same is true for our lives as a whole. Memory provides personal context, a sense of self and a sense of familiarity with people and surroundings, a past and present and a frame for the future. But even as psychologists and brain researchers have learned to appreciate memory's central role in our mental lives, they have come to realize that memory is not a single phenomenon. 'We do not have a memory system in the brain,' says James McGaugh, director of the Center for the Neurobiology of Learning and Memory at the University of California, Irvine. 'We have memory systems, each playing a different role – But you are never aware that your memory has been formed, like some invisible edifice inside your brain'...” Time

Functioning in conjunction with this:

“I see the brains in terms of quantum mechanics,' says neuroscientist Candace Pert, 'The brain is just a receiver, a little wet minireciver for collective reality. We make maps, but we should never confuse the map with the territory' – The ratio of frontal core may be one index of evolutionary advancement, what the frontal lobes control is 'awareness,' or 'self-awareness.' 'If God speaks to man, if man speaks to God,' neuroscientist Candace Pert tells us, 'it would be through the frontal lobes, which is the part of the brain that has undergone the most evolutionary advancement'...Stephen LaBarge – 'And it's capable of doing what look like miraculous things,so miraculous that we're tempted to say it's divine – that it's not 'natural'...” J. Hooper and D. Teresi – The 3-Pound Universe

This enables us to know, for a scientific fact, that the literal, scientifically verifiable definition of our uniquely human consciousness is universally applicable empirical self consciousness, and/or our uniquely human ability to experience all of simultaneously relative omni-dimensional reality, from the largest structure – of the cosmic web, down to the smallest – quantum mechanics, and as a matter of scientific fact as well:

“Scientists: Musicians' brains wired differently – Neuroscientists, using brain-scanning MRI machines to peer inside the minds of professional musicians, found they could hear the music simply by thinking about it...”

And/or, the scientific fact, that a human being, any human being, can scientifically – factually, develop their own, personal “receiver,” to the point where they could – literally, “hear God talk to them,” just like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNaXQQbcgw0
MrMikeludo
Banned User
 
Posts: 225
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: Scientific proof of God's existence.

Postby MrMikeludo on July 18th, 2017, 9:29 am 

BadgerJelly:

Ok, so – again, we now can verify the scientific fact that human beings can fully develop their own, personal neurophysiological functioning capabilities to the point where they can become capable of “hearing the voice of God,” as Salieri did explain, twice:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYHJRhRym1U

And - as science does confirm, but as Mozart did propose, as well:

“...In the night when I cannot sleep, thoughts crowd into my mind as easily as you could wish. Whence and how do they come? I do not know and I have nothing to do with it – Once I have my theme, another melody comes, linking itself to the first, in accordance to the composition as a whole – Then my soul is on fire with inspiration. The works grows, I keep expanding it, conceiving it more and more clearly until I have the entire composition finished in my head – Then my mind seizes it as a glance of my eye a beautiful picture or a handsome youth, it does not come to me successively, with various parts worked out in detail, but in its entirety that my imagination lets me hear it...”

And - again, science has confirmed:

“Neuroscientists using brain scanning MRI machines found that professional musicians could hear musical sounds while reading (two dimensional) musical notation – a skill amateurs in the study were unable to match...Neuroscientists often study how we hear and play music because it is one of the few activities that use many of the areas of the brain (simultaneously), including memory, learning, motor control, emotion, understanding and creativity – It offers a window into the highest levels of human cognition...” AP

Ok, so what can, did, and will happen – to enable all of the confusion, and the literal degradation of mankind's consciousness, to the point where we are, literally, on the verge of the End of Time, as my thesis does also explain.

Well, human beings CAN become capable of “confusing the map with the territory,” as the neuroscientists so explain:

“I see the brains in terms of quantum mechanics,' says neuroscientist Candace Pert, 'The brain is just a receiver, a little wet minireciver for collective reality. We make maps, but we should never confuse the map with the territory' – 'If God speaks to man, if man speaks to God,' neuroscientist Candace Pert tells us, 'it would be through the frontal lobes, which is the part of the brain that has undergone the most evolutionary advancement'...Stephen LaBarge – 'And it's capable of doing what look like miraculous things,so miraculous that we're tempted to say it's divine – that it's not 'natural'...” J. Hooper and D. Teresi – The 3-Pound Universe

And actually, neurophysiologically having their uniquely human conscious, cognizant capabilities – their ability to cognize – and be effected by, reality, diminished, through their consumption of ALL abstracted dopamine inducing phenomena, again as scientists are explaining:

“Heavy users of dopamine inducing stimulants are doing more damage to their brains than scientists had thought, according to the first study that looked inside the brains of heavy consumers of dopamine inducing stimulants - Nearly a quarter of a class of molecules that help people feel pleasure and reward were knocked out. This is the first study to show directly that brain damage, caused by addiction, produces deficits in learning and memory - Dopamine is a brain chemical that regulates movement, pleasure and motivation. When the dopamine system goes seriously awry people lose their excitement for life and can no longer move their limbs. The addicts started out as occasional users but over time the drug hijacked their dopamine systems - Addicts neuron's assaulted by abnormally high levels of dopamine have responded defensively and reduced the number of sites (or) receptors to which dopamine can bind. So while addicts begin taking drugs to feel high, they end up taking them in order not to feel low...”

So, where – EXACTLY, is the “missing link,” to explain all lof the confusion, and degradation, and impending doom?

Well, I explained it, right here @ 23:55:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1GS1lgwdwU&t=1443s
MrMikeludo
Banned User
 
Posts: 225
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: Scientific proof of God's existence.

Postby Braininvat on July 18th, 2017, 1:40 pm 

Mr. Mike: You seem to be offering evidence that some neurological states correspond to a subjective mystical experience of a divine presence. This, in no way, constitutes support for an ontological argument, i.e. that there is an actual existing being we should refer to as "God." Your "proof" could just as well prove the existence of talking unicorns or dragons that eat galaxies for breakfast. Your major roadblock is the fallibility of the human mind and its great capacity for delusions, hallucinations, and beliefs that are not empirically supportable.

Does a man hear God talking to him, or has just externalized part of his imagination and thus holds a false belief that some external being is talking to him, when it is really only just an aspect of his own brain? Did the famous serial killer "Son of Sam," really hear his dog telling him to kill certain people, or was he suffering a psychotic break and only imagining the canine instructions? Sometimes Ockham's Razor is your friend, in trying to determine the basis of a belief.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 5603
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Scientific proof of God's existence.

Postby MrMikeludo on July 18th, 2017, 7:33 pm 

Braininvat:

Uh, what kind of proof were you expecting, walking on water, raising the dead, that's been done already, remember?

And, what effect did it have? Only filled people with a sense of awe, remember as well?

Ok, so anyways – this is the (primary) point: All through history there have been certain people who have claimed to have come to an “understanding” - NOT “belief,” of the Mind of God, and people such as: Plato, Kepler, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, Jefferson, etc, and - according to Jefferson, “a million to one:”

“...So irresistible are these evidences of an intelligent and powerful Agent, that, of the infinite numbers of men who have existed through all time, they have believed, in the proportion of a million to unit, in the hypothesis of an eternal pre-existence of a Creator, rather than a self-existent universe...”

So, anyways again, the point is, that when a person develops the precursory cognitive capabilities that are required to understand – and experience, the mind of God, and then does, that “experiencing of the Mind of God," does – then, cause an effect that is, quite literally, beyond belief – ergo, it is NOT a “belief,” it – the existence of a God, is an “understanding,” which, again, has been postulated all through history, but never capable of being “proven,” mathematically and scientifically, before.

So, what that means, again specifically, is that when a person becomes capable of experiencing the Mind of God, the Eternal Harmony, the Kingdom of Heaven, etc, it does cause an effect, that does, as Thomas Jefferson did also explain:

“...we ride serene and sublime above the concerns of this mortal world, contemplating truth and nature, matter and motion, the laws which bind up their existence, and that Eternal (Harmony)...Let this be our employ, leave the bustle and tumult of society to those who have not talents to occupy themselves without them...”

Make everything – EVERY “THING,” else, become reduced to utterly trivial happenstance, at best, and seem boring as sin as well.

And while including: television, movies, cell phones, computers – the internet (with communication being a necessary evil), abstract knowledge, money, tangible form mass – grandiose environments, large houses, cars, boats, motor cycles, sex, drugs, alcohol, worldly power – becoming the center of attention, abstracted musical sounds, pop society – all (so-called) art, especially 'modern' so called art, clothes, accessories, jewelry, etc, etc, etc, and there is an exact scientific reason why.

That's because all of those “things” are only capable of causing a dopamine biochemical induction, functioning as pure pleasure, and which all require NO “cognitive” capabilities to “experience,” but, becoming capable of experiencing the Eternal Harmony – the Mind of God, causes a mixture of serotonin and endorphins, and that unique combination – while actually experiencing the cognizable four dimensional syntactical structure – which IS the “Mind of God,” is the “thing” which I AM capable of “proving” with the production of the mathematically verifiable visual musical equivalent, that I provided a link to.

And that means, this as well:

“The map is not the territory' - The expression first appeared in print in a paper that Alfred Korzybski gave at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science - The map–territory relation describes the relationship between an object and a representation of that object, as in the relation between a geographical territory and a map of it. Polish-American scientist and philosopher Alfred Korzybski remarked that 'the map is not the territory' and that 'the word is not the thing,' encapsulating his view that an abstraction derived from something, or a reaction to it, is not the thing itself – Only by eating an apple, can one know how an apple tastes...” Wikipedia

That means that no one (the rhetorical no one) can have an “opinion” about it: the mathematically verifiable visual musical equivalent that I have provided a link to, UNLESS they too can “prove” that they have produced one, and THIS is capable of being scientifically verified as well, with this:

“Neuroscientists using brain scanning MRI machines found that professional musicians could hear musical sounds while reading (two dimensional) musical notation – a skill amateurs in the study were unable to match...Neuroscientists often study how we hear and play music because it is one of the few activities that use many of the areas of the brain (simultaneously), including memory, learning, motor control, emotion, understanding and creativity – It offers a window into the highest levels of human cognition...” AP

You see, that - “recognizing and experiencing the effect of the syntactical structure,” is exactly “how” I was able to recognize, and identify it, in Leonardo da Vinci's The Annunciation, as Leonardo did explain:

“The harmonic proportionality is composed simultaneously of the various components, the sweetness of which may be judged both in their general and particular effect..”

While no one, LITERLLY, no one else in the entire history of the world, has ever been able to identify it before, and that is a historical fact as well.

So, again that enables us to approach the proof, from a probability viewpoint, just as “proving” the science of evolution is proven through probability.

But too, what I have become capable of doing, is providing a mathematically verifiable proof, for: the cognitive function of music – the “higher” cognitive function of music, the syntactical structure of music, uniquely human consciousness – universally applicable empirical self consciousness (my term), actually, the literal definition of what defines a “human” being ( as a matter of scientific fact), the definition of “Art” - literally (and there are only 4 in the history of the world), in addition to “proving” the biggest con in the history of the world - “Modern art” - beginning with Picasso, etc, and, in addition to proving the existence and function of a “soul,” and, most importantly whether someone has “sold their soul,” or not.

I think that's a pretty good beginning.

In addition – remember, I will be providing further proofs for validating the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was – and is, the Son Of God – according to the laws of probability, and which will, then, further enable us to prove the existence of a God, of course.
MrMikeludo
Banned User
 
Posts: 225
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: Scientific proof of God's existence.

Postby MrMikeludo on July 18th, 2017, 8:25 pm 

Braininvat:

You see, this is my job:

“If I had not come,
If I had not spoken to them,
they would have been blameless;
but as it is they have no excuse for their sin.
Anyone who hates me hates the Father.
If I had not performed such work among themselves
as no one else has ever done
they would be blameless;
but as it is, they have seen all this,
and still they hate both me and my Father.
But all this was only to fulfill the words written in their Law:
They hated me for no reason.
When the Advocate comes,
whom I shall send to you from the Father,
the Spirit of Truth who issues from the Father,
he will be my witness.” John 15: 22-26

To bear witness to the truth.

So, which is is it:

“Does a man hear God talking to him, or has just externalized part of his imagination and thus holds a false belief that some external being is talking to him, when it is really only just an aspect of his own brain? Did the famous serial killer "Son of Sam," really hear his dog telling him to kill certain people, or was he suffering a psychotic break and only imagining the canine instructions? Sometimes Ockham's Razor is your friend, in trying to determine the basis of a belief.”

I think it's time for the world to decide.
MrMikeludo
Banned User
 
Posts: 225
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: Scientific proof of God's existence.

Postby BadgerJelly on July 19th, 2017, 4:00 am 

I have expressed on this forum a very unique experience I had. It was quite indescribable and I do understand the powerful effect of such experiences.

It was also quite clear to me how easily a persons view of the world could be drastically altered by such an experience. Science, meaning neuroscience in this case, has a long, long way to go in understanding these things. I would not call what I experienced as "God", but I can fully understand why others would attach such an experience as mine to this concept.

When I hear people say "God" spoke to me, or "They heard God", they are expressing something that is not literally SPEAKING or LANGUAGE in the common everyday sense. It is a deep subjective body of experience that has no place, position or tangible lingual expression.

In a sense one aspect of it may be explained to others by talking about someone who loves strawberries and brie, someone like me. When I taste these things I adore them, I love them. If I offer to someone else and say "Isn't it the best thing you've ever tasted!?" to which they reply "It's not bad." it is quite clear and obvious they are not experiencing the same thing as me even though they are tasting the same things. Our physiological subjectivity (our individual differences and knowledge of tastes accumulated over time and experience) differ so as to make the physical world different in appearance.

What is especially difficult about the kind of experience I am talking about is they are VERY hard to come by and when they do come along we tend to fall back into our typical habits of understanding. I remember pressing for answers to questions that I could not even put into words, meaning I pressed home a "feeling" of wanting to understand more rather than driving at any specific question of existence. I stubbornly stuck to this with the occasional digression into more tangible lines of inquiry. When I "gave up" then the "answers", or rather "response" came to me.

At that point I could not explain to myself what I was "seeing". There was no point of reference or comparison, there was no Ockham's Razor or any rational means to apply and any attempt made to objectify the experience pushed it away.

What I question is when we talk about what people like Mozart may have said we don't really know if they were speaking in a flowery kind of language or referring to an extraordinary personal experience. The lack of comparison leaves us forever guessing as to what they felt and what they meant by these words. Plato is even further away from us and he may simply have been expressing some ideas he'd picked up from his travels rather than expressing things due to some form of "psychosis" (altered state of consciousness).

I would predict than within my life time, assuming technological advances are not hindered by economic collapse and/or world war, I will see the beginnings of "Gods walk the Earth", although what I truly mean by this is nothing like what it sounds like and I am mostly guessing/hopeful of what will be revealed by neuroscience and certain attempts at manipulations to control people and or gain capital will result in humans revealing themselves to themselves for the first time in a long time. I would say on a base level we've already become more aware of such things recently through social media and uses of propaganda. In my mind people are still finding it very hard to look at themselves as being the cause of social problems and prefer to distance themselves from reality and/or be blinded by it.

The absurdity of human existence is something we seem petrified of and something we hold at arms length like some sticky turd we just can't shake off our hands. The irony is the turd is part of us not some external problem we have any right to complain and cry about.

This is essentially why science cannot currently help us. Science is based on objectivity. The subjective nature of the kinds of experience I am talking about are perhaps too fleeting or intangible to capture in an objective sense. This is not to say such experiences cannot be related to objective physical data, only that such data can only reach so far toward the subjective experience. The subjective experience is finite and the scientific investigation is infinite, meaning science is an infinite refinement whereas subjective experience in finite and immanent.

We simply do not possess a concept to deal with this contradiction and due to our current concepts frame such a concept as an "impossibility". It is precisely within these realms that the theologian sits lost in their belief in the impossible and pretending they are grounded in rationality.

Mikel -

You've still not left us with anything tangible to get our teeth into. Given that the last I heard of Witten there were literally about half a dozen mathematicians and physicists who could grasp what the hell he was rambling about so I assume you are not one of those people who has an advanced understanding and ability in mathematics? If you are and have sat down with Witten to discuss his thoughts then please give evidence of this.

I am not putting Witten on a pedestal because I am well aware that others in the field dismiss him as a bit of a fringe theorist not to be taken seriously in anything other than in the sphere of pure mathematics.

M Theory basically means nothing, the "M" is a symbol for ignorance. I have not read anything to do with physics for a very long time. It was my first serious love and I did read various bit s and bobs from Kaku, Witten and Penrose. I stopped pursuing physics as an interest because I hate authority and the education system in place. It seems to have freed up more lately and I have been considering taking a degree in either physics or cognitive neuroscience ... I am still on the fence though because I am not inclined to specialize in any one particular area.

I remain as a wannabe intellectual and wannabe scholar.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4319
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Scientific proof of God's existence.

Postby MrMikeludo on July 19th, 2017, 11:30 am 

BadgerJelly:

Ok, let me take some things from the very beginning, and enable us to “sink our teeth” into them, more easily, as we address the issue of consciousness, and the greatest collective con in the history of the world, which was, first, effected by the (so called) Fine Art, art community.

Ok, you mentioned, consuming “strawberries and brie:”

“In a sense one aspect of it may be explained to others by talking about someone who loves strawberries and brie, someone like me. When I taste these things I adore them, I love them. If I offer to someone else and say "Isn't it the best thing you've ever tasted!?" to which they reply "It's not bad." it is quite clear and obvious they are not experiencing the same thing as me even though they are tasting the same things...”

Now, because of advances in neuroscience, we can identify the “objective” AND “subjective” nature of that phenomenon that you described.

Ok, so we know, because of science, that “strawberries” contain a “high level of sugar:”

“About 8.1 grams, or about 64 percent, of the carbohydrates in strawberries consist of sugars.”

And, therefore, when you – me, anyone consumes a “strawberry,” the consumption of the strawberry, because it contains “sugar,” will induce dopamine within our central nervous systems, such as this:

“Clustered in knots deep within the brain are the neurons that produce molecular messengers, within the primitive structure that is one of the brain's key pleasure centers. At a purely chemical level, just as (the injection of heroin) triggers release of dopamine, so too every experience humans find enjoyable, embracing a lover or savoring chocolate (or consuming strawberries), amounts to little more than an explosion of dopamine in the central nervous system – dopamine can be elevated by a kiss, a hug a word of praise...”

And, also – because of advances in neuroscience, we can know – for a scientific fact, that that entire phenomenon involves the “lowest level of consciousness:”

“Candace Pert – We've measured opiate receptors in everything from fruit fly heads to human brains. Even uni-cellular organisms have peptides,'...'Do you think even cockroaches feel some sort of emotion,' we asked neuroscientist Candace Pert – 'They have to, because they have chemicals that put them in the mood to mate and chemicals that make them run away when they're about to be killed. That's what emotions are all about, sex and violence – pleasure and pain, sugar and salt, punishment and reward. Even bacteria have a little hierarchy of primitive likes and dislikes. They're programmed to migrate towards or away from a chemotactic substance; they're little robots that go for sugar at all costs, and away from salt. If you were designing a robot vehicle to walk into the future and survive, as God was when he designed human beings, you'd wire it up so that behavior that ensures survival of the species – like sex and eating, would be naturally reinforcing. Behavior is controlled by anticipation of pain and pleasure, punishment or reward – harmony and chaos, life and death...” J Hooper D. Teresi

And as was explained by Kant, as well:

“The smallest object of experience, pleasure and pain, should be included in the general perception of self-consciousness...”

And Thomas Jefferson, as well:

“Everything in this world is a matter of calculation. Advance then with caution, the balance in your hand. Put into one scale the pleasures which any object may offer; but put fairly into the other the pains which are to follow, & see which preponderates...”

Ok, but so, how can that one, simple experience - “Consuming strawberries and brie,” become “infinitely subjective?”

Simple, well suppose someone consumes strawberries – and immediately “enjoys” the elevated sugar content of the consumed strawberries, and begins to experience pleasure, because of the dopamine induction, but then, after the first bite, that same person begins to experience an allergic reaction to the strawberries, well, then, that SAME person – as they are “consuming the strawberries,” will experience a relatively “painful” - and/or “chaotic,” phenomenon, and, then, that SAME person, instead of experiencing “pleasure,” will experience “pain,” and/or “salt:” “chaos” - “discord” - “pain” - “death,” and which would, then, cause that SAME person to “STOP eating the strawberries,” as that person became “aware of the danger,” and while experiencing that “subjective experience” of their own, personal “subjective existence.”

Ok, so too we know that THAT same “subjective nature of that particular phenomenon” can be, quite literally, infinitely subjectified, of course – BUT, the “subjective” experience can NEVER negate, and/or supersede, the “pure objective nature of reality,” it is literally impossible.

Ok, so, as far as the “Fine art art world” is concerned, this is what I mean: Suppose you begin to eat a “Big red, LUSCIOUS strawberry, dipped in chocolate, and honey,” and while “Sitting at the Le Corner Cafe,” in France, and while “On reality television,” while getting paid money - for simply consuming that strawberry, dipped in chocolate and honey, and while also “Sitting at a high visibility cafe in France,” and then, unbeknownst to you, the producers, of the Reality Television series, had hired Pamela Anderson to walk up and “Kiss you right on the mouth,” as you were “consuming the Strawberry,” and while Pamela was “Wearing that famous RED swimsuit,” that she wore on television, and with all that “stuff” “busting out everywhere,” you know, all of that “sexual stuff” busting out everywhere, and then, as Pamela – in her “Red swim suit,” with all that “sexual stuff busting out everywhere,” “Kissed you right on the mouth,” well then imagine Pamela “Stuck her hand down your pants pocket,” and then “Jammed a million dollars down your pants,” well, what do you think would then happen, “neurophysilogically” only, of course?

Well, THIS:

“One study showed that video games raise dopamine to the same degree that sex does, and almost as much as cocaine does. So this combo of adrenaline and dopamine are a potent one-two punch with regards to addiction - I've worked with hundreds of heroin addicts and crystal meth addicts, and what I can say is that it's easier to treat a heroin addict than a true screen addict—Dr. Nicholas Kardaras"

Yeah, you would experience the same level of dopamine induction as a “meth addict,” as a mater of scientific fact.

And – remember, which is only capable of functioning as “pure pleasure,” but also, remember, which is while you will be employing “zero uniquely human consciousness,” as a matter of scientific fact.

Ok, so now image that the next day, while you were in France, and – remember, it was the EXACT next day – after you had experienced ALL of that “subjective” AND “objective” phenomenon, you went into a Fine Art art museum, and you “saw” - with your eyes, THIS:

https://www.houzz.com/photos/14494734/M ... rn-artwork

Well, what do you think would happen, inside your “mind/central nervous system,” well THIS:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74eTUul4Dcg

But – BUT, ONLY if you were “employing” the “lowest level of human consciousness possible,” as a matter of scientific fact.

Ok, so what the art world did actually do, was to – LITERALLY, con the entire world into becoming, again literally, “brain washed,” into mindlessly believing that the definition of “uniquely human brain death,” and/or being capable of NOT even being able to employ “ANY” uniquely human consciousness, and/or, actually, “LESS consciousness than a cockroach,” is the definition of the “highest level of consciousness,” and, again, THIS is what we can factually “prove,” because of the “mathematically verifiable proof” that I provided.

So, we can begin there – explain those “facts,” as: 2+2=4, and/or, actually, MORE IMPORTANTLY, as: II + II = IIII, and then work our way up.
MrMikeludo
Banned User
 
Posts: 225
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: Scientific proof of God's existence.

Postby BadgerJelly on July 19th, 2017, 12:10 pm 

Mikel _

I pretty much stopped reading here:

Now, because of advances in neuroscience, we can identify the “objective” AND “subjective” nature of that phenomenon that you described.


Can we really? Explain. "Sugar" is not an explanation. You say "objective" and "subjective" so I guess your meaning is hidden within these parenthesis. I don't see the meaning.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4319
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Scientific proof of God's existence.

Postby MrMikeludo on July 19th, 2017, 12:37 pm 

BadgerJelly:

BadgerJelly » July 19th, 2017, 12:10 pm wrote:Mikel _

I pretty much stopped reading here:

Now, because of advances in neuroscience, we can identify the “objective” AND “subjective” nature of that phenomenon that you described.


Can we really? Explain. "Sugar" is not an explanation. You say "objective" and "subjective" so I guess your meaning is hidden within these parenthesis. I don't see the meaning.


Really? Don't be silly, please...
MrMikeludo
Banned User
 
Posts: 225
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: Scientific proof of God's existence.

Postby BadgerJelly on July 19th, 2017, 2:04 pm 

I am not being "silly". I was asking a direct question.

How can we identify the objective and subjective nature of the phenomenon I describe? Be as specific as possible please.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4319
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Scientific proof of God's existence.

Postby MrMikeludo on July 19th, 2017, 2:33 pm 

BadgerJellY:

BadgerJelly » July 19th, 2017, 2:04 pm wrote:I am not being "silly". I was asking a direct question.

How can we identify the objective and subjective nature of the phenomenon I describe? Be as specific as possible please.


Ok:

"Candace Pert – We've measured opiate receptors in everything from fruit fly heads to human brains. Even uni-cellular organisms have peptides,'...'Do you think even cockroaches feel some sort of emotion,' we asked neuroscientist Candace Pert – 'They have to, because they have chemicals that put them in the mood to mate and chemicals that make them run away when they're about to be killed. That's what emotions are all about, sex and violence – pleasure and pain, sugar and salt, punishment and reward. Even bacteria have a little hierarchy of primitive likes and dislikes. They're programmed to migrate towards or away from a chemotactic substance; they're little robots that go for sugar at all costs, and away from salt. If you were designing a robot vehicle to walk into the future and survive, as God was when he designed human beings, you'd wire it up so that behavior that ensures survival of the species – like sex and eating, would be naturally reinforcing. Behavior is controlled by anticipation of pain and pleasure, punishment or reward – harmony and chaos, life and death...” J Hooper D. Teresi
MrMikeludo
Banned User
 
Posts: 225
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: Scientific proof of God's existence.

Postby BadgerJelly on July 19th, 2017, 11:09 pm 

I am still waiting for an answer ...
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4319
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Scientific proof of God's existence.

Postby MrMikeludo on July 20th, 2017, 6:36 am 

BadgerJelly:

BadgerJelly » July 19th, 2017, 11:09 pm wrote:I am still waiting for an answer ...


Well then I'm not sure I understand the question.

IF the question is "How can eating strawberries be defined as an 'objective' phenomenon," THIS is the answer:

"Candace Pert – We've measured opiate receptors in everything from fruit fly heads to human brains. Even uni-cellular organisms have peptides,'...'Do you think even cockroaches feel some sort of emotion,' we asked neuroscientist Candace Pert – 'They have to, because they have chemicals that put them in the mood to mate and chemicals that make them run away when they're about to be killed. That's what emotions are all about, sex and violence – pleasure and pain, sugar and salt, punishment and reward. Even bacteria have a little hierarchy of primitive likes and dislikes. They're programmed to migrate towards or away from a chemotactic substance; they're little robots that go for sugar at all costs, and away from salt. If you were designing a robot vehicle to walk into the future and survive, as God was when he designed human beings, you'd wire it up so that behavior that ensures survival of the species – like sex and eating, would be naturally reinforcing. Behavior is controlled by anticipation of pain and pleasure, punishment or reward – harmony and chaos, life and death...” J Hooper D. Teresi

If the question is something else, you can let me know.
MrMikeludo
Banned User
 
Posts: 225
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: Scientific proof of God's existence.

Postby Don Juan on July 21st, 2017, 6:31 am 

Having a hard to time to follow your logic in the OP, MrMikeludo. Can I request you to shorten your arguments into few main propositions, say less than 30 propositions in bullet points or numbers? If you could even do it less than 10, I would be very grateful. Thank you.
Don Juan
Active Member
 
Posts: 1113
Joined: 17 Jun 2010
Braininvat liked this post


Re: Scientific proof of God's existence.

Postby MrMikeludo on July 21st, 2017, 3:44 pm 

Don Juan:

Don Juan » July 21st, 2017, 6:31 am wrote:Having a hard to time to follow your logic in the OP, MrMikeludo. Can I request you to shorten your arguments into few main propositions, say less than 30 propositions in bullet points or numbers? If you could even do it less than 10, I would be very grateful. Thank you.


Don Jaun:

It's simple – Human beings have a genetic predisposition to be effected by certain things in certain ways, while in accordance to our basic, biological neurophysiological functioning capabilities, encoded within our DNA, and of: pleasure and pain, but, in addition, human beings are unique, to all other animals, in that we can process more information, specifically, beyond three dimensional perception, than all other creatures, in addition to being able to function abstractly, and which does not mean what most people believe it does today.

So, in our daily existence, we are surrounded by “beauty:” - “harmony” - “pleasure” - “concord,” etc, made manifest by the appearance of things, such as: “trees” - “rivers” - “flowers,” etc, but we are also surround by “ugliness:” - “chaos” - “pain” - “discord,” etc, and which have the ability to effect us in the exact opposite way, of: beauty – harmony, etc.

But, in addition, a human being can develop the neurophysiological functioning capabilities to be effected by the “functions” that surround us in our daily existence, such as: vectors – derivatives – cadences – articulated directed tensions – etc, and which are, by definition, the Laws of Nature made manifest, and which is also the definition of the Mind of God, and, when a human being does develop those capabilites, they “transform” a “belief” - as in, something you can not “see,” which are all functions – they can only be “understood,” into an “understanding,” and which does, then, enable that same person the opportunity to experience a phenomenon that is, LITERALLY, beyond “belief” - AS they become capable of experiencing the Mind of God made manifest.

Ergo, God's existence - the Mind of God made manifest, the Eternal Harmony, etc, is NOT a “belief,” it is an “understanding” - a "neurophysiological" capability.
MrMikeludo
Banned User
 
Posts: 225
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: Scientific proof of God's existence.

Postby BadgerJelly on July 21st, 2017, 11:49 pm 

I still don't understand what you are talking about.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4319
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Scientific proof of God's existence.

Postby MrMikeludo on July 22nd, 2017, 3:07 am 

BadgerJelly:

BadgerJelly » July 21st, 2017, 11:49 pm wrote:I still don't understand what you are talking about.


You're making this WAY more complicated than it needs to be.

Here, there's a "scientific" - purely "objective," reason "why" our (normal person's) exposure to THIS:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAWXyzh7fYw

Is capable of causing the EXACT - "scientific," opposite reaction than our (normal person's) exposure to THIS:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1X4tkpP_F0

Do you see - ALL of what I mean?
MrMikeludo
Banned User
 
Posts: 225
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: Scientific proof of God's existence.

Postby Don Juan on July 22nd, 2017, 8:30 am 

MrMikeludo » July 21st, 2017, 9:44 pm wrote:Don Juan:

It's simple – Human beings have a genetic predisposition to be effected by certain things in certain ways, while in accordance to our basic, biological neurophysiological functioning capabilities, encoded within our DNA, and of: pleasure and pain, but, in addition, human beings are unique, to all other animals, in that we can process more information, specifically, beyond three dimensional perception, than all other creatures, in addition to being able to function abstractly, and which does not mean what most people believe it does today.


I have some questions...

1. What specifically do you mean by ‘beyond three dimensional perception’?

So, in our daily existence, we are surrounded by “beauty:” - “harmony” - “pleasure” - “concord,” etc, made manifest by the appearance of things, such as: “trees” - “rivers” - “flowers,” etc, but we are also surround by “ugliness:” - “chaos” - “pain” - “discord,” etc, and which have the ability to effect us in the exact opposite way, of: beauty – harmony, etc.


2. Do you mean all people experiences the world in exactly the same way?

But, in addition, a human being can develop the neurophysiological functioning capabilities to be effected by the “functions” that surround us in our daily existence, such as: vectors – derivatives – cadences – articulated directed tensions – etc, and which are, by definition, the Laws of Nature made manifest, and which is also the definition of the Mind of God, and, when a human being does develop those capabilites, they “transform” a “belief” - as in, something you can not “see,” which are all functions – they can only be “understood,” into an “understanding,” and which does, then, enable that same person the opportunity to experience a phenomenon that is, LITERALLY, beyond “belief” - AS they become capable of experiencing the Mind of God made manifest.


3. How specifically a human being “effected” by the “functions” that according to you surround us in our daily existence?
4. What do you mean by the Laws of Nature?
5. What do you mean by ‘the Laws of Nature made manifest’? Made manifest by whom?
6. What is the definition of ‘the Mind of God’?
7. What specifically are those neurophysiological functioning capabilities?
8. Have you experienced that which you say a phenomenon beyond “belief?” If so, can you describe it exactly how you experience it?
10. How exactly you know ‘they become capable of experiencing the Mind of God made manifest?’

Ergo, God's existence - the Mind of God made manifest, the Eternal Harmony, etc, is NOT a “belief,” it is an “understanding” - a "neurophysiological" capability.


11. You mean to say, there is God and that this God has a Mind, or do you mean there is a Mind and there is God who have it? How did you proceed exactly form observing this world to the proof of Mind and then to the proof of God, or the proof of God and the proof that God has a Mind?

My apologies because my mind is not as fast to digest it all of your assertions.
Don Juan
Active Member
 
Posts: 1113
Joined: 17 Jun 2010


Re: Scientific proof of God's existence.

Postby BadgerJelly on July 22nd, 2017, 8:38 am 

"This" and "this" explained in words rather than videos would help. Maybe it is more complicated? If not say it in simple terms with the need for pictures, videos or diagrams please.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4319
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Scientific proof of God's existence.

Postby MrMikeludo on July 22nd, 2017, 12:32 pm 

BadgerJelly

BadgerJelly » July 22nd, 2017, 8:38 am wrote:"This" and "this" explained in words rather than videos would help. Maybe it is more complicated? If not say it in simple terms with the need for pictures, videos or diagrams please.


Human beings possess a genetic predisposition to be capable of responding to the two extremes of basic, bio physiological reactionary phenomena – of “pleasure and pain,” and/or: sugar and salt – harmony and chaos – life and death, and which is an ability encoded within the DNA of all living cells, and which is the pure “objective” quality of all phenomena.

So, we know that “strawberries” contain a “high sugar content,” therefore, we can know – for an “objective fact,” that when a human being “eats a strawberry,” they will be “consuming sugar,” which will then – upon the “consumption of the sugar,” cause a dopamine biochemical induction within the human being's central nervous system – which would, then, cause that same human being to experience a “pleasurable phenomenon,” and/or: sugar – pleasure – harmony – life.

Also, human beings exposed to “feces,” would experience a “painful” phenomenon, and experience the exact opposite - “objective,” phenomenon.

Ergo, ALL of our “human experiences” can contain a “pure objective quality.”
MrMikeludo
Banned User
 
Posts: 225
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: Scientific proof of God's existence.

Postby MrMikeludo on July 22nd, 2017, 2:49 pm 

Don Juan:

“What specifically do you mean by ‘beyond three dimensional perception’?”

Human beings – and only human beings, can develop the cognitive – neurophysiological, capability to experience “four dimensional phenomenon,” and/or the “functions” of reality, actually: Time made manifest.

Such as this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLm07s8fnzM

Or, a “musical scale” - the universal, primary “building blocks” of all “music,” which can possess a “cognitive” - four dimensional function.

Which is this: Ok, first off let me explain, I spent my, literal, lifetime listening to music (basically) 18 hours a day/7 days a week, 365 days a year, and – most importantly, “alone” - learning how to see and understand the various four dimensional functions, I also spent my lifetime training as a long distance runner and bicyclist, so – as I was training, I learned how to correlate “what” I had begun to “see” inside my head, as I was listening to the actual music, with what I was experiencing - as I was outside “experiencing reality.”

Ok, so what I developed the ability to do, was/is to “see” - literally, “music” inside my head, and, meaning specifically, beginning with the ability to “see” the individual “notes” that all of music is comprised of, actually effectually functioning as “simultaneously relative fundamental frequency modulations,” and/or Time made manifest.

Ok, so this is the simplest explanation, look at this picture:

https://www.cityofpanora.com/cswp2015/sidewalk.html

Ok, if you look at that “photograph” of a sidewalk, you will see that – if you were to measure the “individual sections of sidewalk,” the “section” “closest to us” - as we would be standing upon the sidewalk, would “appear” to be a little “wider” than the next succeeding section of sidewalk, and so on up to the horizon line.

Now, if we were to take a “note” - a musical note, which is also a harmoniously proportioned fundamental frequency modulation, and place it on an oscilloscope, we could then see that the “low” fundamental frequency modulations have a more wide gap between the peaks of the crest of their waves, than do the “high” fundamental frequency modulations.

So, what that means is this: When a person – such as myself, develops the ability to “see” “notes,” actually effectually functioning as “simultaneously relative fundamental frequency modulations,” what they develop the ability to do, is “see” the fundamental frequency modulation, actually effectually functioning as a “completed simultaneously relative line segment,” and/or the equivalent of an “individual section of sidewalk,” but – ONLY, as “simultaneously relative” to our point/position located here upon planet earth – AND, as “simultaneously relative” to an “identifiable” point/position, also located an at “identifiable” point/position located within “identifiable simultaneously relative space/time.”

Which is a function of “Time” - “made manifest.”

So, when a person develops the ability to actually do this, what they do is: Realize/cognize their simultaneously relative point/position – UPON planet earth, and/or to simplify it, imagine literally “standing upon that sidewalk,” and – then, cognize your point/position UPON the sidewalk, where you are “standing,” and identify that point/position as “Point A,” ok, now – as you “maintain” that point/position within your three dimensional mind, begin to listen to a scale – AS you “consciously cognize” a second “simultaneously relative point/position” located and a “universal” point/position upon the horizon line – of planet Earth, identified as “point B,” ok?

Ok, now, begin to listen to a scale, or: Do – Re – Mi, and – as you “consciously maintain” BOTH “points” A and B – within your three dimensional mind, and located at identifiable simultaneously relative points UPON planet Earth, what you can then develop the ability to “consciously experience,” is this: With your cognizance of the “first note”: note/simultaneously relative fundamental frequency modulation/completed line segment/point/position – WITHIN simultaneously relative space /time, your “mind” - NOT your “eyes,” can begin to “move” up – and out, through simultaneously relative space/time – AS “relative” to your simultaneously relative point/position located here upon planet Earth – AS you “consciously cognize” the NOTE: “Do.”

Ok, now – as you hear the “second note:” Re, repeat that function, and – as you hear the “third note:” Mi, repeat it yet again, and so on.

THAT is a “four dimensional perception,” actually effectually functioning, as “Time made manifest.”

Ok, now you know how we have automobiles? So, what is their “function:” to “move” us from point A to point B, right?

So, why would anyone ever get into their automobile, and move from point A to point B, simply to enable themselves to get into another vehicle, and then again simply move NOT from point A to point B, BUT from point A, to point A – as in a “roller coaster?”

Well, the reason is because the “accelerated movement” causes an effect.

Well, when a human being develops the ability to experience the phenomenon that I just describe, it “causes an effect” - that is a purely “intellectual” effect, as a matter of fact.

Have some errands to do, will continue...
MrMikeludo
Banned User
 
Posts: 225
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: Scientific proof of God's existence.

Postby Don Juan on July 23rd, 2017, 12:50 am 

MrMikeludo » July 22nd, 2017, 8:49 pm wrote:Don Juan:

“What specifically do you mean by ‘beyond three dimensional perception’?”

Human beings – and only human beings, can develop the cognitive – neurophysiological, capability to experience “four dimensional phenomenon,” and/or the “functions” of reality,


How exactly do you know human beings and only human beings can develop such?

What is the cognitive-neruophysiological capability exactly? Can you describe it in terms of maybe the sense or your mental representations?

What do you mean specifically by "function"?

actually: Time made manifest.


What exactly is time made manifest? What is 'made manifest'? 'Made manifest' by whom or what?


Or, a “musical scale” - the universal, primary “building blocks” of all “music,” which can possess a “cognitive” - four dimensional function.


How exactly such possess a "cognitive" - four dimensional function?

What exactly do you mean by "cognitive"?

Which is this: Ok, first off let me explain, I spent my, literal, lifetime listening to music (basically) 18 hours a day/7 days a week, 365 days a year, and – most importantly, “alone” - learning how to see and understand the various four dimensional functions, I also spent my lifetime training as a long distance runner and bicyclist, so – as I was training, I learned how to correlate “what” I had begun to “see” inside my head, as I was listening to the actual music, with what I was experiencing - as I was outside “experiencing reality.”


What are the four dimensional functions exactly?

What exactly do you mean by 'to correlate'? How did you do it, and can you describe it step by step?

What did you see inside of your head exactly? Can you describe it?

What were you listening to actually?

Ok, so what I developed the ability to do, was/is to “see” - literally, “music” inside my head, and, meaning specifically, beginning with the ability to “see” the individual “notes” that all of music is comprised of, actually effectually functioning as “simultaneously relative fundamental frequency modulations,” and/or Time made manifest.


What do you mean exactly by "see"-literally? How do you differentiate that from hallucinations? How exactly do you will be able to describe it so we can sense that its different from what is experienced outside and also from those inside which belong to hallucinations?


Ok, so this is the simplest explanation, look at this picture:

https://www.cityofpanora.com/cswp2015/sidewalk.html

Ok, if you look at that “photograph” of a sidewalk, you will see that – if you were to measure the “individual sections of sidewalk,” the “section” “closest to us” - as we would be standing upon the sidewalk, would “appear” to be a little “wider” than the next succeeding section of sidewalk, and so on up to the horizon line.

Now, if we were to take a “note” - a musical note, which is also a harmoniously proportioned fundamental frequency modulation, and place it on an oscilloscope, we could then see that the “low” fundamental frequency modulations have a more wide gap between the peaks of the crest of their waves, than do the “high” fundamental frequency modulations.

So, what that means is this: When a person – such as myself, develops the ability to “see” “notes,” actually effectually functioning as “simultaneously relative fundamental frequency modulations,” what they develop the ability to do, is “see” the fundamental frequency modulation, actually effectually functioning as a “completed simultaneously relative line segment,” and/or the equivalent of an “individual section of sidewalk,” but – ONLY, as “simultaneously relative” to our point/position located here upon planet earth – AND, as “simultaneously relative” to an “identifiable” point/position, also located an at “identifiable” point/position located within “identifiable simultaneously relative space/time.”


Where is your reference exactly relative to planet earth?

Can you describe exactly how do you see notes?

Which is a function of “Time” - “made manifest.”

So, when a person develops the ability to actually do this, what they do is: Realize/cognize their simultaneously relative point/position – UPON planet earth, and/or to simplify it, imagine literally “standing upon that sidewalk,” and – then, cognize your point/position UPON the sidewalk, where you are “standing,” and identify that point/position as “Point A,” ok, now – as you “maintain” that point/position within your three dimensional mind, begin to listen to a scale – AS you “consciously cognize” a second “simultaneously relative point/position” located and a “universal” point/position upon the horizon line – of planet Earth, identified as “point B,” ok?


Ok, possibly not many person develop such ability. And maybe its only you or a very. I do not have such ability, so are you willing to share how to exactly develop such in a step by step procedure?

Look here, what I am trying to examine is that consistent structure in you that produce abundantly such writings and speaking. When I begin following your argument, there are shifts and twists so foreign to me, but hidden in your graceful flow of words that take me away from understanding and into confusion. You see that I can sense a pattern in you, a generator of complex expression, and its interesting.

Ok, now, begin to listen to a scale, or: Do – Re – Mi, and – as you “consciously maintain” BOTH “points” A and B – within your three dimensional mind, and located at identifiable simultaneously relative points UPON planet Earth, what you can then develop the ability to “consciously experience,” is this: With your cognizance of the “first note”: note/simultaneously relative fundamental frequency modulation/completed line segment/point/position – WITHIN simultaneously relative space /time, your “mind” - NOT your “eyes,” can begin to “move” up – and out, through simultaneously relative space/time – AS “relative” to your simultaneously relative point/position located here upon planet Earth – AS you “consciously cognize” the NOTE: “Do.”


Ok you have an active mind -visual, auditory and kinesthetic representations combining into a whole internal representation, but how is that exactly different from what is out there, or have you integrated that with what is out there? Is there a distinction or none?

Ok, now – as you hear the “second note:” Re, repeat that function, and – as you hear the “third note:” Mi, repeat it yet again, and so on.

THAT is a “four dimensional perception,” actually effectually functioning, as “Time made manifest.”


Ok, but you said within my three dimensional mind. Of course I would admit that my mind exist in space, but you said 'four dimensional perception," so I am into confusion again. What exactly is 'four dimensional perception' in your own terms? What do you mean by it exactly? Describe it.

Ok, now you know how we have automobiles? So, what is their “function:” to “move” us from point A to point B, right?


That's good observation.

So, why would anyone ever get into their automobile, and move from point A to point B, simply to enable themselves to get into another vehicle, and then again simply move NOT from point A to point B, BUT from point A, to point A – as in a “roller coaster?”


Now, you lost me. Give a concrete example of moving from point A to point point A as in a "roller caster?" Of course other people once they are in point B would like to move from point B to point A?

Well, the reason is because the “accelerated movement” causes an effect.


"accelerated movement" from what?
What is the direct connection of the accelerated movement to the effect?
What is that effect?

Well, when a human being develops the ability to experience the phenomenon that I just describe, it “causes an effect” - that is a purely “intellectual” effect, as a matter of fact.

Have some errands to do, will continue...


I hope I could gather more information to be able to understand what you have described. I do not wantt to decide that my understanding now of your description is final or else I will assert that it is confusing, instead I have to admit that I don't fully understand.
Don Juan
Active Member
 
Posts: 1113
Joined: 17 Jun 2010


Re: Scientific proof of God's existence.

Postby BadgerJelly on July 23rd, 2017, 1:29 am 

I have no problem believing someone can "awaken" cross-sensory perception (what is the other technical term? Sythes ... blah blah blah or something)

As for the rest my questions are much like Don's at the start of his last post.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4319
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Scientific proof of God's existence.

Postby MrMikeludo on July 23rd, 2017, 2:52 pm 

Don Juan:

“Human beings – and only human beings, can develop the cognitive – neurophysiological, capability to experience 'four dimensional phenomenon,' and/or the 'functions' of reality,
'How exactly do you know human beings and only human beings can develop such?”

Because scientific studies have confirmed it, such as this:

“If humans are less robotlike than salamanders or ducks, it's not because we have no wired in behaviors. In fact, we have quite a few. What makes the difference is the ratio of 'un-wired' to wired-in grey matter, because neurons that are not committed at birth to a set function – are available for learning, for modification. Virtually all the cells in an amphibian brain directly process sensory information – or control movement, but in humans a great grey area – about three fourths of the cortex – lies between sensory input and motor output, called the association areas. These include the frontal lobes...”

In addition, we can see it ourselves, with our own eyes.

Here, watch this video of me calling my dog, Sky:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUPsU1JC1zA

So, in that video, you can see me call my dog, and say “Sky – over here,” as she turns to “look” with her eyes, at the “wall that my voice is echoing off,” and then turns to look over at me, where I am standing – as I am calling her name, while remaining incapable of “engaging in formal abstract thought,” and/or remaining “incapable of understanding simultaneously relative reality.”

Sky, because she is an animal, can NOT say: “That's only Michael's 'voice' echoing off the wall, and Michael is NOT simultaneously standing at two points at one point in time,” but Sky can “hear,” and/or perceive, the sound of my voice, and see the image of my body being projected into her mind, which is a simple, perceptual capability.

“What is the cognitive-neruophysiological capability exactly? Can you describe it in terms of maybe the sense or your mental representations?”

Yes – For a (beginning) explanation you can see my latest post addressed to “dandelion” in my “Syntax and the definition of Art” post, in the Art forum (the one ending with a reference to Beethoven's Ninth, bottom of page1), that is the simplest explanation.

“What do you mean specifically by 'function'?”

A “function” is a “perceptual change between two points, observed from a third point,” and/or the definition OF:

“What exactly is time made manifest? What is 'made manifest'? 'Made manifest' by whom or what?”

Time made manifest.

“Made manifest,” means “brought into existence,” as in “God” made manifest all of simultaneously relative reality, and/or, Beethoven made manifest his Ninth symphony.

“How exactly such possess a 'cognitive' - four dimensional function?
What exactly do you mean by 'cognitive'?”

Again, see my latest post in my “Syntax and the definition of Art,” defining our uniquely human consciousness, which is our uniquely “human” “cognitive” capability – our ability to, first, understand all of simultaneously relative four dimensional reality, and, then, “look” at a “two dimensional pictorial representation” - OF reality, and then, become capable of “experiencing” the “effects of four dimensional reality” - as we “look” at a two dimensional pictorial representation of reality.

“What are the four dimensional functions exactly?”

Four dimensional functions are “Time made manifest,” and/or, again, perceiving – and be effected by, a change between two points, while being observed from a third point – within our minds, AND “without” there being ANY actual “three dimensional tangible form masses perceived” also, and/or “experiencing any 'movement," themselves.

“What exactly do you mean by 'to correlate'? How did you do it, and can you describe it step by step?
What did you see inside of your head exactly? Can you describe it?
What were you listening to actually?”

Again, you can see my latest post, in the “Syntax and definition of Art,” post.

“What do you mean exactly by "see"-literally? How do you differentiate that from hallucinations? How exactly do you will be able to describe it so we can sense that its different from what is experienced outside and also from those inside which belong to hallucinations?”

Because THAT is the “definition.”

In other words, if someone says “Hey I can 'see' something – of a 'non thing,' that others have not yet seen, or most don't see,” well, then, if that person can provide a “proof” of what they see/saw, and such as this: “E=Mc2,” well, then we can “acknowledge what that person saw/sees is 'real,” while – exactly simultaneously, if a person – ANY person, stands in front of the world, and says THIS is 'what' I “see:”

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... e-1932.jpg

And they can NOT “prove” that that thing exists in reality, well then we – the entire world, define THAT person as “literally insane,” and anyone who can not “understand” that fact, as also insane.

“Where is your reference exactly relative to planet earth?
Can you describe exactly how do you see notes?”

Yes, right here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAYhTIQ8mgI&t=37s

“Ok, possibly maybe not many person develop such ability. And maybe it is only for a very (few)...”

Well, that's EXACTLY what the Boss said:

“Enter by the narrow gate, since the road that leads to perdition is wide and spacious, and many take it; but it is a narrow gate and a hard road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” Matthew 7: 13-14

And again:

“Do not store up treasures for yourselves on earth, where moths and woodworms can destroy them and thieves break in and steal. But store up treasures for yourselves in heaven, where neither moth nor woodworms can destroy them and thieves can not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” Matthew 6: 19-21

And:

“...are you willing to share how to develop such an ability.”

That's my job, as the Boss explained:

“I have said all these things to yourselves
while still with you;
but the Advocate; the Holy Spirit,
whom the Father shall send in my name,
will teach you everything
and remind you of all I have said to you.” John 14: 25-26


“...I have to admit I do not fully understand...”

You will.
MrMikeludo
Banned User
 
Posts: 225
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: Scientific proof of God's existence.

Postby BadgerJelly on July 24th, 2017, 2:19 am 

Mikel -

WHAT ARE YOU SAYING?? At the moment very little other than you can "see" music. So what?
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4319
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Scientific proof of God's existence.

Postby MrMikeludo on July 24th, 2017, 9:19 pm 

BadgerJelly:

BadgerJelly » July 24th, 2017, 2:19 am wrote:Mikel -

WHAT ARE YOU SAYING?? At the moment very little other than you can "see" music. So what?


I think you don't quit get it. What I 'm saying, is that this is the very beginning of the end of time, and that everyone is going to die – soon.

Because, just as Jesus of Nazareth predicted that Judas would betray Him, he did – just as Jesus predicted, and just as Jesus of Nazareth predicted that Peter would deny Him, he did - just as Jesus predicted, and just as Jesus of Nazareth predicted that He would be betrayed, He was – just as He predicted, and just as Jesus of Nazareth predicted that He would be crucified, He was – just as He predicted, and just as Jesus of Nazareth predicted that He would rise again, He did – just as He predicted, and so too, just as Jesus of Nazareth predicted:

“Still, I must tell you the truth
it is for your own good that I am going
because unless I go
the Advocate will not come to you;
but if I do go,
I will send him to you.
And when he comes,
he will show the world how wrong it was,
about sin,
and about who was in the right,
and about judgment:
about sin:
proved by their refusal to believe in me;
about who was in the right:
proved by my going to the Father
and your seeing me no more;
about judgment:
proved by the prince of this world being already condemned.
I still have many things to say to you
but they would be too much for you now.
But when the Spirit of truth comes
he will lead you to complete truth,
since he will not be speaking as from himself
but will say only what he has learned;
and he will tell you of things to come.
He will glorify me,
since all he tells you
will be taken from what is mine.
Everything the Father has is mine;
that is why I said:
All he tells you
will be taken from what is mine.”
John 16: 5-15

The end of time will come at a point in time, when someone can become capable of factually “proving” EVERYTHING I've already become capable of proving, in addition to proving that Jesus was, most probably – according to the laws of probability, The Son of God, which I am going to prove, according to the laws of probability, and then the end will come.

Oh and by the way, to see how much I have proved that the world was, and is, “wrong about sin,” watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1GS1lgwdwU
MrMikeludo
Banned User
 
Posts: 225
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: Scientific proof of God's existence.

Postby Don Juan on July 25th, 2017, 1:25 am 

MrMikeludo wrote:Don Juan:

“Human beings – and only human beings, can develop the cognitive – neurophysiological, capability to experience 'four dimensional phenomenon,' and/or the 'functions' of reality,
'How exactly do you know human beings and only human beings can develop such?”

Because scientific studies have confirmed it, such as this:

“If humans are less robotlike than salamanders or ducks, it's not because we have no wired in behaviors. In fact, we have quite a few. What makes the difference is the ratio of 'un-wired' to wired-in grey matter, because neurons that are not committed at birth to a set function – are available for learning, for modification. Virtually all the cells in an amphibian brain directly process sensory information – or control movement, but in humans a great grey area – about three fourths of the cortex – lies between sensory input and motor output, called the association areas. These include the frontal lobes...”


I would like to bring to attention the 'Qoute' function in the 'POST A REPLY' you can use to quote paragraphs to add more clarity consistently, MrMikeludo.

What is the context of the scientific study you cited? Would you please provide a link to the paper so those who would like to follow your citation may read it.

How specifically the scientific study you cited confirmed your assertion that human beings and only human beings can develop such?

In addition, we can see it ourselves, with our own eyes.

Here, watch this video of me calling my dog, Sky:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUPsU1JC1zA


We can see it ourselves what specifically? Would you enumerate them?

So, in that video, you can see me call my dog, and say “Sky – over here,” as she turns to “look” with her eyes, at the “wall that my voice is echoing off,” and then turns to look over at me, where I am standing – as I am calling her name, while remaining incapable of “engaging in formal abstract thought,” and/or remaining “incapable of understanding simultaneously relative reality.” Sky, because she is an animal, can NOT say: “That's only Michael's 'voice' echoing off the wall, and Michael is NOT simultaneously standing at two points at one point in time,” but Sky can “hear,” and/or perceive, the sound of my voice, and see the image of my body being projected into her mind, which is a simple, perceptual capability.


So with this observation, you are concluding that human beings and only human beings can develop such and such...?

“What is the cognitive-neruophysiological capability exactly? Can you describe it in terms of maybe the sense or your mental representations?”

Yes – For a (beginning) explanation you can see my latest post addressed to “dandelion” in my “Syntax and the definition of Art” post, in the Art forum (the one ending with a reference to Beethoven's Ninth, bottom of page1), that is the simplest explanation.


Would you please provide the link. Thank you.

“What do you mean specifically by 'function'?”

A “function” is a “perceptual change between two points, observed from a third point,” and/or the definition OF:


Would you please provide the source of the definition?
“What exactly is time made manifest? What is 'made manifest'? 'Made manifest' by whom or what?”

Time made manifest.

“Made manifest,” means “brought into existence,” as in “God” made manifest all of simultaneously relative reality, and/or, Beethoven made manifest his Ninth symphony.


Ok. How specifically time is made manifest to be able for you to say it is made manifest?

“How exactly such possess a 'cognitive' - four dimensional function?
What exactly do you mean by 'cognitive'?”

Again, see my latest post in my “Syntax and the definition of Art,” defining our uniquely human consciousness, which is our uniquely “human” “cognitive” capability – our ability to, first, understand all of simultaneously relative four dimensional reality, and, then, “look” at a “two dimensional pictorial representation” - OF reality, and then, become capable of “experiencing” the “effects of four dimensional reality” - as we “look” at a two dimensional pictorial representation of reality.


Please provide a link. Thanks.

“What are the four dimensional functions exactly?”

Four dimensional functions are “Time made manifest,” and/or, again, perceiving – and be effected by, a change between two points, while being observed from a third point – within our minds, AND “without” there being ANY actual “three dimensional tangible form masses perceived” also, and/or “experiencing any 'movement," themselves.


What about being affected by change from multiple points more than two while being observed from multiple points?

“What exactly do you mean by 'to correlate'? How did you do it, and can you describe it step by step?
What did you see inside of your head exactly? Can you describe it?
What were you listening to actually?”

Again, you can see my latest post, in the “Syntax and definition of Art,” post.


Provide the link. Thanks. Or it is here at Religion forum?

“What do you mean exactly by "see"-literally? How do you differentiate that from hallucinations? How exactly do you will be able to describe it so we can sense that its different from what is experienced outside and also from those inside which belong to hallucinations?”

Because THAT is the “definition.”

In other words, if someone says “Hey I can 'see' something – of a 'non thing,' that others have not yet seen, or most don't see,” well, then, if that person can provide a “proof” of what they see/saw, and such as this: “E=Mc2,” well, then we can “acknowledge what that person saw/sees is 'real,” while – exactly simultaneously, if a person – ANY person, stands in front of the world, and says THIS is 'what' I “see:”


We have counter-checks of course because we live in a world we perceive as systems. This world has so many parts in so many levels and so many relationships in so much a non-linear as well as linear dynamics. Then an event can be perceived from various point of views and can be checked by the context in which it is embedded, as well as its own very internal structure. Possibly, gradually I will be learning your pattern. The pattern is like mixing saucy pasta, you see, the strands are intact, and the breaks are hidden in the mix and the sauce, and what seems to matter to you is the whole mix...who cares about the breaks anyway...it can be forgotten unconsciously.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... e-1932.jpg

And they can NOT “prove” that that thing exists in reality, well then we – the entire world, define THAT person as “literally insane,” and anyone who can not “understand” that fact, as also insane.


How do you know that exactly?
“Where is your reference exactly relative to planet earth?
Can you describe exactly how do you see notes?”

Yes, right here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAYhTIQ8mgI&t=37s


Right at your room?

“Ok, possibly maybe not many person develop such ability. And maybe it is only for a very (few)...”

Well, that's EXACTLY what the Boss said:

“Enter by the narrow gate, since the road that leads to perdition is wide and spacious, and many take it; but it is a narrow gate and a hard road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” Matthew 7: 13-14


What exactly is the context of that verse?

And again:

“Do not store up treasures for yourselves on earth, where moths and woodworms can destroy them and thieves break in and steal. But store up treasures for yourselves in heaven, where neither moth nor woodworms can destroy them and thieves can not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” Matthew 6: 19-21


What exactly is the meaning of this verse?

And:

“...are you willing to share how to develop such an ability.”

That's my job, as the Boss explained:

“I have said all these things to yourselves
while still with you;
but the Advocate; the Holy Spirit,
whom the Father shall send in my name,
will teach you everything
and remind you of all I have said to you.” John 14: 25-26


Ok what are the specific steps?


“...I have to admit I do not fully understand...”

You will.


And as I begin to fully understand as...you...say....you...will...begin...to...realize....that there is a...horizon...out there...that's right...allow...your mind...to ...notice...gently...yes...notice...how beautiful the colors...of the horizon...as you hear...the pleasantness...of those...around you...making you feel more...relaxed...that's right...so that the breaks...in there...right there...you...may...begin...to...notice...and wonder....what help...and benefit...it provides...you...and what...better...choices are happily...dancing around...to...better...improve...awareness...and...note...of the breaks...and to begin...to thoughtfully...yes thoughtfully....consider them...in you...allowing you...to a...more...and yet...gradual...and more...orderly reason...to describe...and think...about...reality...allowing you...even further...to relax...leaving you a...smile there...right there...in your heart. Relax...
Don Juan
Active Member
 
Posts: 1113
Joined: 17 Jun 2010


Re: Scientific proof of God's existence.

Postby BadgerJelly on July 25th, 2017, 4:41 am 

Yeah, everyone dies? So what? "Soon" is relative.

You can "prove" by probability that Jesus was the Son of God? Go ahead.

I watched about 5 mins of video after intro music and then got bored watching you laugh about Lious' comments. You expect me to watch a video for 57 minutes when nothing you've said or shown makes any kind of sense?

Not going to happen. Plus if we're going to "die soon" why should I? You know you look crazy so you're probably playing on this for some reason rather than just getting to the point.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4319
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Next

Return to Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests