There is no tangible and verifiable evidence for the big bang or a million other things. So much so that the theories are already being replaced. There is evidence for existance of the consciousness outside of the body, but 'science' generally ignores it. There is much anecodtal, and even controlled study, evidence to show that there is likely more to existence than this physical world.
do you believe in heaven?
- Thread starter cm1179
- Start date
There is no tangible and verifiable evidence for the big bang or a million other things. So much so that the theories are already being replaced. There is evidence for existance of the consciousness outside of the body, but 'science' generally ignores it. There is much anecodtal, and even controlled study, evidence to show that there is likely more to existence than this physical world.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
No - it is still blind, because it is invented and believed it without any basis that it is actually true.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
There might be evidence in the same way that the Bible is evidence for God existing or Jesus performing miracles. There might be evidence in the same way that if I tell you I was abducted by aliens and they all looked like Tony Blair, then aliens look like Tony Blair.
However, there is no independently verifiable or tangible evidence to support the existence of consciousness outside of the body.
I refer you back to my evidence that aliens look like Tony Blair - no more, or less credible than any number of people citing some anecdote.
That's not true. Scientists, doctors and others have conducted studies in the area and have not only achieved results but replicated them. Universities around the world have genuine scientists studying this, but it's often the case that mainstream science doesn't want to know, ignoring the replicable evidence placed in front of them. Who is the more closed-minded?
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
Show me
Yawn. Universities have genuine Professors who invent equations for the perfect handshake or the perfect sitting position, too.
Last edited:
Ever heard of Lucid Dreaming?
The brain is very active during sleep and a hell of a lot more powerful. Through practice (or accident) you can indeed become 'concious' during sleep.
If I asked you right now to imagine and actually 'feel' what it's like to fly, or lay on a field of grass with all the individual blades of grass poking against your back, I'm pretty certain you couldn't, the concious part of your brain can't process such vast information. Yet during lucid dreaming you can do this easily and even feel it as though it is actually happening.
A common example I suppose would be that feeling most people have had of falling then suddenly waking up, your body obviously didn't move from your bed, yet your mind convinces your body it was real and to feel it.
We always have these kind of conversations at work, or should I say I bore people with talking about it
I think memory plays a huge huge part in our being. Assuming you don't know how to become concious during a dream, you live out that dream as though that's reality, it's only when you awake can you comprehend that it was all just a dream. It's like a switch in your head, when the dream light is on you're whatever you dream says you are, but when you wake that light turns off and the 'reality' light comes on and suddenly you're a completely different person.
Is it not a possibility that when we die we could also 'wake up' and be a completely different person/being and only then comprehend that our physical life was just a dream?
But you can't be dreaming while you're dead, or more importantly when your bain is dissolving/rotting away…
This site took me days to read, as each section has sub-sections and spawns into new sections etc... But it does summarise some of the current studies etc being done into consciousness and also a case that was debated ad-nauseum on here a while back. Namely, Dr Michael Sabom's report of brain surgery he performed whereby he put a patient on bypass, drained her head (and thus brain) of blood and flattened her EKG. She was, literally, clicnically dead for the entire duration of the operation, yet came back with incredibly detailed descriptions of the operation, the unique tools used, the music and conversations, and then her subsequent travels into the 'afterlife'.
Since she was being actively monitored by various devices (ECG, EKG, amongst others), was anaesthetised, hypothermic, had verified brain-stem death for the duration, today's science says she should not have been able to do any of the above. Yet she clearly did.
Since she was being actively monitored by various devices (ECG, EKG, amongst others), was anaesthetised, hypothermic, had verified brain-stem death for the duration, today's science says she should not have been able to do any of the above. Yet she clearly did.
Presuming of course that your consciousness is inherent to your physical brain.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Apr 2003
- Posts
- 3,356
- Location
- South North West
Let's conduct an experiment. We'll come round and beat your brain to a bloody pulp with a clawhammer, but leave the rest of you untouched. If you're conscious again any time in the next five trillion years, we'll accept the brain isn't the place where the life in our bodies is marshalled, organised, and focused into what we call consciousness.
Fair deal?
Andrew McP
Let's conduct an experiment. We'll come round and beat your brain to a bloody pulp with a clawhammer, but leave the rest of you untouched. If you're conscious again any time in the next five trillion years, we'll accept the brain isn't the place where the life in our bodies is marshalled, organised, and focused into what we call consciousness.
Fair deal?
Andrew McP
Only so long as you agree to a similar deal, like so:
We'll come round and beat your TV set to a pulp with a claw hammer, but leave the rest of the world untouched. If your TV set doesn't make Eastenders appear again any time in the next five trillion years, we'll assume that your TV was the source of Eastenders and that it couldn't, doesn't and didn't appear or originate from anywhere else.
Fair deal?
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 14,081
- Location
- Between Realities
Only so long as you agree to a similar deal, like so:
We'll come round and beat your TV set to a pulp with a claw hammer, but leave the rest of the world untouched. If your TV set doesn't make Eastenders appear again any time in the next five trillion years, we'll assume that your TV was the source of Eastenders and that it couldn't, doesn't and didn't appear or originate from anywhere else.
Fair deal?
I like that
This
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
Only so long as you agree to a similar deal, like so:
We'll come round and beat your TV set to a pulp with a claw hammer, but leave the rest of the world untouched. If your TV set doesn't make Eastenders appear again any time in the next five trillion years, we'll assume that your TV was the source of Eastenders and that it couldn't, doesn't and didn't appear or originate from anywhere else.
Fair deal?
This doesn't make sense, and no one is suggesting that one's TV "makes Eastenders" appear
How does it not make sense? I suggested that an earlier argument was dependent upon the premise that the brain was the be-all and end-all of consciousness. Andrew countered that if he smashed my head in and destroyed my brain, my consciousness wouldn't be there any more.
I simply pointed out that that's like saying smashing a TV set means the programs don't exist any more.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Apr 2003
- Posts
- 3,356
- Location
- South North West
I think the idea Rainmaker is suggesting, correct me if I'm wrong, is that Eastenders gets emitted from an external source which then manifests itself through an object, a television in this case.
The same logic can be applied to the human conciousness. We assume conciousness is created within the brain, but it could be that it's projected from another place/realm of existence, and the brain is merely a receiver of this conciousness. So ultimately, even when the body/brain die, it does not mean that the signal or source does also.
Right. So your argument is turned on its head against you, and the best you can do is go all ad homien in response. Always the sign of a confident argument. Oh, wait.
Basically, yes.