This thread is for proof that God exists (page 14)

So we know that scientist understand "physical" reality. Do we know that there's another group of people who understand the "other factors that make up reality?"

If so, how does this other group know there are other factors?

What methodology do the use to determine those other factors?

What are those other factors?

Who is this group that knows about these other factors?

Is there consensus in the group about those other factors?

Ruby456

slim, thats almost going back to the beginning of time. heck, if thats the case, i'd be crazy to take it personally

Fisherman

There was a time I thought you were interested in honest debate SBF.
I have given you the benefit of the doubt too often.
Fisherman - Bollocks

Cofty,

You seem to think that your criticism validates your argument. It does not.

The links and the subject matter in many of your posts are interesting however, I will fomr my own opinions not yours about what you post.

cofty

if thats the case... - Ruby

It isn't. SBF knows as much but he has become increasingly dishonest recently.

Must be frustration that nobody is taking his flat earth and thinking rocks seriously.

I will fomr my own opinions not yours about what you post. - Fish

I wouldn't want it any other way.

slimboyfat

I just noticed this ridiculous comment on the first page.

Love is an emotion that all of us have experienced first hand - and love is also scientifically demonstrable with measurable accuracy.

It's exactly this sort of nonsensical reductionism (love can be scientifically measured) that neuroscientist Raymond Tallis never tires of exposing.

Finally, and most importantly, the experiments look at the response to very simple stimuli – for example, a picture of the face of a loved one compared with that of the face of one who is not loved. But, as I have pointed out elsewhere (for the benefit of Martians), romantic love is not like a response to a stimulus. It is not even a single enduring state, like being cold. It encompasses many things, including not feeling in love at that moment; hunger, indifference, delight; wanting to be kind, wanting to impress; worrying over the logistics of meetings; lust, awe, surprise; imagining conversations, events; speculating what the loved one is doing when one is not there; and so on. (The most sophisticated neural imaging, by the way, cannot even distinguish between physical pain and the pain of social rejection: they seem to “light up” the same areas!)

https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/2172/neurotrash

It's a shame you didn't bother to read the peer reviewed scientific paper I cited in my very next post as many of the objections you raised are addressed. The New Humanist article, which you quoted from, can be forgiven as it's seven years old and was written before the science was in.

But incase you missed it here's the link again:

http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00071/full

If after reading it you still think it's "nonsensical reductionism" then by all means feel free to reach out to the Professor who co-authored the paper, Dr. Zhang, to give him a piece of your mind and tell him exactly why you know so much more about the topic than he does.

Here's his e-mail [email protected]

This thread is for proof that God exists

Share this