beecee

Care to point to a screen shot or some type of evidence showing that the research resulted in evidence of god. Of course not! That's just your personal bias,

Again despite your misinterpretation, the scientific research is not in question.What is in question is your bias in misinterpreting the non conclusive results so far. You continued denials and apparent arrogance certainly fit the god botherering troll/crank examples the forum has had in the past.

https://phys.org/news/2018-07-century-old-life-significant-substantiation.html A century-old model for life's origin gets significant substantiation July 25, 2018, Weizmann Institute of Science A 'walk' in composition space for a lipid world molecular assembly, shown in simplified 3 dimensions. A point on the line signifies a specific composition along the time axis, whereby the three coordinates are amounts of the three different molecule types. A composome (pink background) is a time interval when the composition stays almost unchanged, signifying compositional replication. Credit: Weizmann Institute of Science In 1924, Russian biochemist Alexander Oparin claimed that life on Earth developed through gradual chemical changes of organic molecules, in the "primordial soup" which likely existed on Earth four billion years ago. In his view, the complex combination of lifeless molecules, joining forces within small oily droplets, could assume life faculties—self-replication, selection and evolution. These ideas were received with considerable doubt, still pertaining today. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-07-century-old-life-significant-substantiation.html#jCp

Your so called debatable Perennial Philosophy, drug taking and Mystical experiences are not evidence for god: That's simply your misnterpretation due to your bias.

https://phys.org/news/2018-09-chemical-analysis-extremely-metal-poor-star.html Researchers conduct chemical analysis of six extremely metal-poor star candidates September 11, 2018 by Tomasz Nowakowski, Phys.org An international team of researchers has conducted a chemical study of six new very metal-poor star candidates in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data Release 12 (SDSS DR12). The new research, available in a paper published August 29 on the arXiv pre-print repository, could help researchers better understand the early stages of chemical evolution of the galaxy. Extremely metal-poor stars (EMPs) are generally perceived by astronomers as the relics of the early chemical evolution of the Milky Way galaxy. They can be crucial in advancing the knowledge of the nature of the first stars that formed in the universe as their chemical composition is an important tool for constraining the nucleosynthesis in the first generation of stars. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-09-chemical-analysis-extremely-metal-poor-star.html#jCp the paper: arxiv.org/abs/1808.09918 Abstract The most metal-poor stars are the relics of the early chemical evolution of the Galaxy. Their chemical composition is an important tool to constrain the nucleosynthesis in the first generation of stars. The aim is to observe a sample of extremely metal-poor star (EMP stars) candidates selected from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data Release 12 (SDSS DR12) and determine their chemical composition. We obtain medium resolution spectra of a sample of six stars using the X-Shooter spectrograph at the Very Large Telescope (VLT) and we used ATLAS models to compute the abundances. Five stars of the sample have a metallicity [Fe/H] between -2.5 dex and -3.2 dex. We confirm the recent discovery of SDSS J002314.00+030758.0. As a star with an extremely low [Fe/H] ratio. Assuming the alpha-enhancement [Ca/Fe]=+0.4 dex, we obtain [Fe/H]=-6.1 dex. We could also determine its magnesium abundance and found that this star exhibits a very high ratio [Mg/Fe] >= +3.60~dex assuming [Fe/H] = -6.13 dex. We determined the carbon abundance and found A(C)=6.4 dex. From this carbon abundance, this stars belongs to the lower band of the A(C)-[Fe/H] diagram. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-09-chemical-analysis-extremely-metal-poor-star.html#jCp

https://phys.org/news/2018-09-astronomers-witness-birth-star-stellar.html Astronomers witness birth of new star from stellar explosion September 12, 2018, Purdue University The explosions of stars, known as supernovae, can be so bright they outshine their host galaxies. They take months or years to fade away, and sometimes, the gaseous remains of the explosion slam into hydrogen-rich gas and temporarily get bright again—but could they remain luminous without any outside interference? That's what Dan Milisavljevic, an assistant professor of physics and astronomy at Purdue University, believes he saw six years after "SN 2012au" exploded. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-09-astronomers-witness-birth-star-stellar.html#jCp

It wasn't expressed at all just insideously misinterpeted by yourself due to your bias and probable brain washing. Science proves nothing as I have often told others that seek to push their religious convictions on this forum. That is the beauty of science and the scientific methodology, rather then the "stick in the mud"attitude of god botherers. The research was based on a philosophy with personal opinions. Mystical experiences, drug taking and philosophical jargon, are not evidence for any god of any persausion and misinterpreted by your own bias..

There was none, and never was none. I personally requested a dozen times to link me to the exact piece claiming that this was evidence of god...It never happened, just the usual conspiracy, obtuseness, and claims of legitimate conclusive science. No conclusion was reached other then in the mind of the instigator of this nonsense, and driven by his incredible bias. Again my only criticism of the mods is excess leaning over backwards to give him a chance. As this thread suggests, he owns all the bias, and is attempting to now control through devious means his own content, on something that was previously locked and settled.

Ahh the marvels of the electronic age... You've convicted yourself matey. This dramatically illustrates the bias in your lengthy rhetorical posts and incorrect claims. You have bias and you have lost control it seems.

No your not. Of course not! Unlike you, she isn't going around preaching rhetorical rubbish, trying to convince people of her beliefs

Yes, what strange claims in this day and age.

Not in the least, considering I've been married to the same woman for 42 years, who is and always has been a devout Christian in the true sense of the word. Nice picture...were you standing in front of a mirror? Yes, This I suspect though this is simply "spitting the dummy" and doing his best to drag someone else down with him. Going once, going twice, going, going..............

Sure I did. As I said, he hit the nail fair square on the head, I make no apologies for observational data that distinctly supports that description of your posts in generral. Two thread closures attest to the error of your ways. My only criticism of both closures is that the mods lent too far over backwards to try and give you a fair go. You shit in your own nest my friend...don't go playing the victim now and blaming everyone else. But again that topic is closed. This thread is on your unjust criticism of the mods, me, and the forum and anyone who has dared to criticise your errors and misinterpretations..

If you were at all paying attention, and took any notice of what anyone else said instead of single mindedly pushing your own agenda, you would have seen I was actually quoting another person, who I believe hit the nail fair square on the head with regards to yourself. Of course!!!! The same goes for all the other cranks, god botherers and trolls that have come here preaching unsupported and unevidenced nonsense. In actual fact the weight of evidence against you, says you are wrong, and are simply pushing an agenda that has seemingly been indelibly scrawled in your brain since you were a kid. Exactly what the person I quoted was actually saying.

Although it can and has been pointed out to you that all those are, are simply philosophical opinions on some philosophical research, and that what you actually claimed was not actually said, this is a thread started by you on your perception that the mods were biased. And according to the rules anyway, that subject is now off topic and closed. So we are discussing your perception that the mods are/were biased? Perhaps in actual fact, if you could accept that you perhaps were/are biased, for your total out right dismissal of simple known facts, in favour of your own prejudices then we maybe able to continue. Perhaps you should read Phil's post again, and stop trying to make up your own rules, or unjust, unreal interpretations of those rules based on your own prejudices. No, you pointed me to a block of text, when I asked for a specific content re any non existent evidence. You were/are obliged to answer me. And they all applied to yourself and your inability to accept that you may be wrong, and your obvious "must win" attitude, even to the extent of ignoring valid evidence and arguments, invalidating your wrong stance.

With all due respect, why don't you read the rules and become familiar with them....In line of course with your own advice to me when I asked for a specific answer and you referred me to a block of text. You just added total confirmation and solidity to Phil's legitimate points.

Yeah sure! more conspiracies, more denials, more lies, more obfuscation. The evidence of your desperado tactics are here for all to read my friend.

So your last thread was an illusion? You know the one that was closed because you persisted in ignoring all the answers to your misinterpretations.

You are making the ridiculous claims based on your own bias. The onus is on you to show me and all the others that a mystical experience is evident of god, and that this research claims that it is evidence of god. Show the forum where these professionals doing some philosophical research into mystical experiences and spirituality, claim it is evidence for god. It's common because its true. We just had an agnostic also accuse you of deceit, and of course not everyone observing these threads is an atheist, yet no one has yet sprung to your defence.

You have misinterpreted the research because of your obvious bias and gullibility. You are making the silly claims, not I. Let me also add being obtuse and dishonest to that collection of descriptive adjectives applying to yourself. But I'll answer anyway...a mystical experience is not evidence for god. The research undertaken does not claim that. I just did..

And your posts and antics are common amongst many other god botherers we have had on this forum.

Please show the forum the evidence for god.

More realistically it is in fact your own agenda and bias. Yes a conspiracy in trying to project that the bias exists with the majority. You are grossly misinterpreting the research and are unable to point me to where they claim what you claim, or the evidence supporting that. Get real, stop pretending. It;s unknown because there was no positive worthwhile result. Live with it. It is no more then philosophy pertaining to spirituality......Philosophy is what we don't know: Science is what we know. As everyone that has participated in this and the other thread, all agree with your over the top baseless misinterpretations and claims...particularly with regards to mystical experiences.

That's your perogative to disagree, but when this thread finally ends or is closed, that will be the end of it, not withstanding your dreams to the contrary. Ahh yes the other conspiracy that I forgot to list...No one on this forum understands it. Do you also believe in Santa and the easter bunny? A perspective that you due to your obvious previous agenda, has drawn the wrong conclusions from. Disagree all you like. I'll do some research tomorrow when I go out and question 100 people for you on their so called awaking. If I get one I'll be surprised. You need to get into the real world my friend. Nup, try again. My criticism is supported totally by mainstream science and not the results of an inconclusive philosophical research project and your crusade for this god. I'm simply posting arguments against your misinterpretations, nothing more, nothing less.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1464070?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents ) All religions are not the same The Perennial Philosophy, by being so universalist and essentialist, ends up doing violence to the traditions it tries to cohere. The Tao is not the same as the Christian God (the Tao cares nothing for individuals, as Lao Tzu says), nor are either the same as Buddhist sunyata or emptiness. The eternal now of Buddhism or Stoicism is fundamentally different to Christianity’s radical hope for the future. The mystics themselves do not agree that all religions are talking about the same ultimate reality. 2) Perennialists tend to rank religions hierarchically All religions are equal, but some are more equal than others. Perennialists tend to rank religions, and even sects within religions. Shamanism is the lowest, then monotheisms like Christianity, Judaism and Islam, then mystics within these traditions (Rumi is better than Mohammad, Meister Eckhart is better than Jesus), then Buddhism and Hinduism, and the peak of the mountain is non-dualist philosophies of emptiness like Advaita and Tibetan Buddhism’s Dzogchen. All religions are equal, but some are more equal than others Christianity is usually near or at the bottom – Sam Harris says it has basically nothing useful to say about the human condition, Aldous Huxley said the Bible was an obstacle to evolution – and Tibetan Buddhism is at the top. Look at the Contemplative Studies conference I’m going to in Boston this month – I’d estimate 90% of the speakers are western Buddhists, hardly any are Christians, and the key-note speaker is, obviously, the Dalai Lama. Perennialists tend to be western and tend to have rejected their Judeo-Christian background, and therefore rank Christianity low in their wisdom rankings. And of course Christianity, like Islam and Judaism, fits uneasily within a Perennial framework, with their tribal eschatologies and their faith in their unique revelation. 3) Perennialism often tends to the tyranny of empiricism and Cartesian reductionism Perennialists like Huxley, Maslow, Wilber or Sam Harris tend to describe the Perennial Philosophy as a ‘science of consciousness’, providing empirical certainty for some of the claims of the mystics. Your mind is the laboratory, in which you can go and check these facts for yourself. This attitude, while understandable in its attempt to validate spiritual experiences within a hostile scientific materialist environment, tends to reduce such experiences to subjective occurrences in the individual brain. Towards a participatory spirituality So what is Ferrer’s alternative? He suggests that Perennialism often succumbs to an outdated ‘mental representation’ model of cognition: Divine Reality exists out there, and we experience it in our minds, like a camera taking a photo. Instead, he suggests a more participatory form of knowing. Our consciousness and imagination helps to create the reality we experience. more at link here http://www.philosophyforlife.org/exploring-the-multiverse-of-spiritual-pluralism/ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::So much for this supposed superior perennial philosophy and its questionability. Here's some more on this hairy fairy subject of perennial philosophy https://www.quora.com/What-is-wrong-with-Perennial-philosophy John Uebersax, Director, Californians for Higher Education Reform Answered Nov 23, 2017 As a general concept, i.e., that all religions share certain core principles rooted in the eternal truths of Nature, human nature and reality itself, it makes good sense and is valuable for understanding religion. However there are three potential problems one should be careful of. The first is to become so involved in examining a wide range of religious thought that one never looks at any one system closely, or practices it with sufficient knowledge and dedication to experientially discover what religion really means. In other words, this is the danger of dilettantism. The second potential problem is to blithely assume that just because there are common core principles amongst religions that there are not significant differences as well, or that all religions express these ultimate truths equally well and are of equal value. In contrast, a Christian perennialist like Marsilio Ficino might maintain that earlier religions were true in large part, but were nevertheless leading up to a even fuller expression of religion in the form of Christianity. Third is the danger of mistakenly equating the views of a particular author with the genuine core of religious teachings. Thus, for example, Aldous Huxley, perhaps the most famous proponent of the theory, colors the interpretation of the perennial philosophy according to his personal prejudices through his selection of what common themes to either highlight or downplay. second reply: Voytek Potrzebowski, M.A. Philosophy, Jagiellonian University (2010) Answered Apr 18, 2017 Looking for commonalities is deeply hard wired in our brains. It has to be there and it is unavoidable. Have you ever wondered why there are reappearing lines of a refrain in songs or why songs with a “catchy” refrain become so popular? It is simply because our brain “likes” that and cannot do without it. Such a way of information clinging says something very fundamental about our relationship with any data we experience. It is just impossible to think it could be in any other way. In my personal opinion, it may also be a leading factor in the emergence of personality. A brain simply gets used to certain reoccurring patterns, applies something that can be called a “perennial function” and arrives at what is known as self-perception, which is simply a familiarity with certain patterns as well as anticipation of the said. Perennial philosophy is often considered to be rooted in the idea of the One, which appeared in different versions or deliberations across antiquity and far beyond, maybe even as far as to the concept of singularity popular nowadays. It seems to be just as fundamental as the concept of personality and contrary to the latter, the former seems to be just as fundamental and principal that our mind simply cannot go beyond even further. Maybe this is where the problem lies or where it is “wrong” in a sense of us being unable to crack it open. Another argument might recall religious perennialism, which may have totally unexpected consequences of a search for common metaphysical or theological truth. One of the clearest intersections of Judaism, Christianity and Islam goes through a family of Abraham. It may appear that there is something deeply spiritual at that junction, which turns quite unexpected and not that deep at all. In this example, such a way of thinking can be simply “wrong” or a trick of a mind that simply leads itself towards what it “likes best” but not where the “truth”, which it should be after, is. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Actually re-enforcing my view on this hairy fairy philosophical nonsense and the unscientific claims that gullible people fabricate from it.