Strange

For the same reason that cows are spherical

I know what perrenial philosophy is (and I think it is a very sensible perspective on religion and mysticism). What I am asking you is what your definition of “god” is.

But you refuse to give us your definition so I am stuck with mine.

Which is not in the least bit surprising. But says nothing about the existence of gods.

And that is evidence that people experience the same thing. Not of the reality of gods.

That doesn’t make it true. Obviously. Obviously. You said this is science. So I don’t care about people you know. Show us the (published and peer-reviewed) statistics that support this claim. 1. Citation for where this has been established 2. How do you define a “complete” mystical experience? If an atheist doesn’t become a believer, does that mean it wasn’t “complete”? (This would be the No True Scotsman fallacy - you can add it to your collection) The other thing they have in common is that they write about it. How do we make sure this isn’t selection bias? How do we find the numbers who remained atheists and didn’t bother to write about it afterwards? So ... again ... can you tell us what that definition of god is? Not the context but what “god” means for the purpose of this thread. No they aren’t. As you just admitted. The most they might say is that people have “experienced the divine”

That is evidence of human psychology/behaviour not gods. Just because they believe in something doesn’t make it real. But is this what this is all about? You did some drugs and now think you know “The Truth” Quite possibly. But their beliefs say nothing about the reality of what they believe. Maybe it is telling us that people who have brain damage from taking drugs become religious. What we need is an experiment to distinguish these two hypotheses. (And I assume you are ignoring the people who have these experiences and remain atheists. ) Yes. That’s what I said. Well done. Now, can you explain it? So all these videos are just discussing two papers? That’s it? I find that hard to believe. So why not post the papers that all these videos are discussing? You have already done that. Neither of the papers you linked to say, “and therefore god exists”. You made that bit up. That is not what I asked. What is wrong with you? Unless you are saying that “god” is defined as “having mystical/religious experiences”. Is that it?

We know that. (p.s. there is a Quote button that will let you quote other people’s posts properly) Yes but you have provided no evidence for your god. No one said that was the case. So this is a strawman fallacy. All that tells us is what their subjective experience is. That is not evidence for gods. If you are not able to understand something as fundamentally simple as that then their is no hope. You have been blinded by your beliefs. What is the difference? Because I can’t see any difference between what I said and “because that's what's universally reported by the volunteers”. Then why not actually post actual links to those actual published papers on the actual science? And that is part of the problem. Just repeating the same claims and the same links doesn’t help. Yes. You have said that repeatedly. But you haven’t said what this definition IS, nor what objective test could be performed, etc

Then science may not be the right subject for you.

Doh. Of course. Thank you. So, about 8 years, 7 months. That's still a long time

So it seems to come down to: "gods must exist because people believe in them and have mystical experiences." It would be hard to think of a less convincing argument.

No one denies the subjective experiences or the role that drugs play in them. But this says nothing about the existence of gods. Not sure why this is so hard to understand. Unless you have already made up your mind and are not interested in an open-minded discussion. I don't see why. The argument that some hallucinations are more "real" than other because they prove what you want to believe is a prime example of the fallacy of begging the question.

Nothing at all. But your delusions are mildly amusing. Perhaps you should write a book.

You can't use subjective experiences as evidence. We know that people's experiences are not reliable. I have had hallucinations and seen a tiny alien flying around the room on a golf ball. That is not evidence that small aliens or powered golf balls exist. Perhaps you should go away, study the scientific method and come back when you have an objectively testable definition of god.

Only in that it discusses religious or spiritual experiences. That doesn't provide any evidence of the existence of god(s). Hmmm. It works (with warnings) if I change it to http instead of https (and then my ISP warns me that it is not safe!) Neither of which provide any evidence that there are gods.

Which, as you have demonstrated, is not your strong point.

So what is your quantitatively testable (ie scientific) definition of "the divine"? What tests would we do to confirm or deny its existence? What properties could we measure and what what instruments?

It is a fairly mainstream technology magazine (I think I may have met the author, years ago).

It is odd, then, that you can only post videos and not the peer-reviewed literature. This is about psychedelic drugs. Not god. And where was it published? This link doesn't work. So you have one irrelevant paper.

I think the only one that is not mainstream (and is, in fact, complete fantasy) is the "gravity diode". The others are real things. No idea what the point of the thread is, though.

Well bless your heart.

Yes. True. But I suspect a lot of people nowadays don't know that there types of computer exist or are possible. So his "all" probably means "all digital electronic computers" (of course, we will never know). I actually restricted t to "modern electronic" but never mind.

So you think doing it wrong is more accurate than doing it correctly? What planet are you on? What is that? You just guess at the results? If it hadn't been wrong. Duh.

Thank you. But that is nowhere near "the functions that microprocessors do today" It is also a binary system. There is nothing close to a computer today: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_computing#Notable_advancements_in_biocomputer_technology So, you were wrong. You can steer "a little more to the right". Bipolar transistors have emitter, collector and base. These are rarely used in digital circuits. These mainly use MOSFETs which have source, drain and gate terminals.

Please explain where I have gone wrong? The temperature is not the important factor but the rate of energy release. Do you have any figures on that? So, which is it?