The problem with atheism.

[yogi]

Penrose is arguing that the "uncanny coincidence" of the existence of our universe is evidence of an intelligent hand at work.

The problem is that any talk about the statistical probability of a certain universe occurring is meaningless. Our sample size of universe formation events is exactly one. How can we possibly know or measure how many "other universes" would have to form "randomly" before we get ours? We have no evidence that there even are other universes.

From faulty statistics, we get an untestable claim. It sounds good, but does it demonstrate anything?

Bingo, the chance of a planet being able to sustain life is also small. But, given enough planets, some will be suitable.

[SlyWax]

I was really hoping someone would give me a counter argument that it is mathematically impossible for the earth to evolve by chance.  

The calculations of British mathematician Roger Penrose show that the probability of universe conducive to life occurring by chance is in 10 to the 10123 power. The phrase "extremely unlikely" is inadequate to describe this possibility.

http://www.faizani.com/news/news_2003/math_impossibility.html

Call God imaginary if you want.  But if it was not God, there is still an intelligent designer.  It is mathematically proven.

Lol, here is another one :
http://www.reasons.org/articles/probability-for-life-on-earth

But the problem is that they don't have the same number, and not even a close number, but something like 10^10000 difference.
Why ?
Just because this is not science, this is just poping number out of your hat and multiplying them, or even use some formula to make it look more scientific.
But this is just smoke and mirrors, it might work with ignorant people or with people that are so eager to believe, that anything would suffice.

At some point you should ask yourself how your will to believe just prevent you from accepting any counter argument.

Let me ask you a simple question :
If you are presented with a scientific proof (an undeniable proof) that god doesn't exist, what will you do ?

[termhn]

I was really hoping someone would give me a counter argument that it is mathematically impossible for the earth to evolve by chance.  

The calculations of British mathematician Roger Penrose show that the probability of universe conducive to life occurring by chance is in 10 to the 10123 power. The phrase "extremely unlikely" is inadequate to describe this possibility.

http://www.faizani.com/news/news_2003/math_impossibility.html

Call God imaginary if you want.  But if it was not God, there is still an intelligent designer.  It is mathematically proven.

Lol, here is another one :
http://www.reasons.org/articles/probability-for-life-on-earth

But the problem is that they don't have the same number, and not even a close number, but something like 10^10000 difference.
Why ?
Just because this is not science, this is just poping number out of your hat and multiplying them, or even use some formula to make it look more scientific.
But this is just smoke and mirrors, it might work with ignorant people or with people that are so eager to believe, that anything would suffice.

At some point you should ask yourself how your will to believe just prevent you from accepting any counter argument.

Let me ask you a simple question :
If you are presented with a scientific proof (an undeniable proof) that god doesn't exist, what will you do ?

Let me answer for him: find a way to deny it.

[Biomech]

Wait wait wait. You go as far as to disbelieve the THEORY OF EVOLUTION? There are so many ways to prove it. The coccyx is one small example that, even if it is wrong, doesn't matter. The REAL important proof comes from GENETICS. We can see useless genes in the human genome. These are left over from evolution. Genetics is what makes us what we are, and through it, we can prove evolution. In addition, how do you explain dinosaurs? The huge crater that is in the Gulf of Mexico from the meteor that wipes them out? No mention of that in genesis, man actually NAMES every creature, and yet, man did not even exist when dinosaurs did. If you are going to say "god put the remnants in the earth on purpose," what POSSIBLE motivation could he have?

Also, there are two completely separate stories of creation inside Genesis, each from a different biblical source. Which one do you believe? Why? What makes it correct and the other false? Why are there two of them?

It just doesn't make sense!

My problem with modern evolutionary theory is that the exact evidence supporting it can be used to support other theories that are equally plausible, if not more so, than current theory.

And what theories are those?

For example, evolution in consciousness leads to evolved physical states rather than vice versa.

I've actually seen quite a bit of that particular debate among evolutionary biologists. It just doesn't apparently get a lot of press. The mechanics of evolution are hotly debated. The fact of it is only debated by the uninformed or the religious, as far as I can tell.

I've watched several conferences (0ne was on TED not that long ago) and the actual mechanics of evolution are more a series of hypotheses than actual theory. I myself, and I'm not an evolutionary biologist, find a lot of problems with current theory as to HOW it works. That it works is at this point beyond proven.

[BitChick]

I was really hoping someone would give me a counter argument that it is mathematically impossible for the earth to evolve by chance.  

The calculations of British mathematician Roger Penrose show that the probability of universe conducive to life occurring by chance is in 10 to the 10123 power. The phrase "extremely unlikely" is inadequate to describe this possibility.

http://www.faizani.com/news/news_2003/math_impossibility.html

Call God imaginary if you want.  But if it was not God, there is still an intelligent designer.  It is mathematically proven.

Penrose is arguing that the "uncanny coincidence" of the existence of our universe is evidence of an intelligent hand at work.

The problem is that any talk about the statistical probability of a certain universe occurring is meaningless. Our sample size of universe formation events is exactly one. How can we possibly know or measure how many "other universes" would have to form "randomly" before we get ours? We have no evidence that there even are other universes.

From faulty statistics, we get an untestable claim. It sounds good, but does it demonstrate anything?

I would think that it at least demonstrates there there is some issues with the probability of it happening.  Especially with numbers that high.  Even if the calculations are different, one should be able to logically see that the chance of things happening by "Chance" are just too unlikely.

So there were other universes?  Let's say that is your argument.  Well, all we have to look at is the universe we are in.  One can make up other universes, billions of years, the Oort cloud, or whatever else is deemed necessary to keep the theory of evolution afloat but we should be looking at the evidence we have in front of us. 

What are the odds of even a simple cell being formed by chance? From an article http://www.foolishfaith.com/book_chap3_odds.asp:

For a more graspable notion of the improbability, he has calculated the odds of the accidental formation of a simple living cell to be roughly comparable to the odds of rolling double-sixes 50,000 times in a row with unloaded dice

[Biomech]

I was really hoping someone would give me a counter argument that it is mathematically impossible for the earth to evolve by chance.  

The calculations of British mathematician Roger Penrose show that the probability of universe conducive to life occurring by chance is in 10 to the 10123 power. The phrase "extremely unlikely" is inadequate to describe this possibility.

http://www.faizani.com/news/news_2003/math_impossibility.html

Call God imaginary if you want.  But if it was not God, there is still an intelligent designer.  It is mathematically proven.

Penrose is arguing that the "uncanny coincidence" of the existence of our universe is evidence of an intelligent hand at work.

The problem is that any talk about the statistical probability of a certain universe occurring is meaningless. Our sample size of universe formation events is exactly one. How can we possibly know or measure how many "other universes" would have to form "randomly" before we get ours? We have no evidence that there even are other universes.

From faulty statistics, we get an untestable claim. It sounds good, but does it demonstrate anything?

I would think that it at least demonstrates there there is some issues with the probability of it happening.  Especially with numbers that high.  Even if the calculations are different, one should be able to logically see that the chance of things happening by "Chance" are just too unlikely.

So there were other universes?  Let's say that is your argument.  Well, all we have to look at is the universe we are in.  One can make up other universes, billions of years, the Oort cloud, or whatever else is deemed necessary to keep the theory of evolution afloat but we should be looking at the evidence we have in front of us. 

What are the odds of even a simple cell being formed by chance? From an article http://www.foolishfaith.com/book_chap3_odds.asp:

For a more graspable notion of the improbability, he has calculated the odds of the accidental formation of a simple living cell to be roughly comparable to the odds of rolling double-sixes 50,000 times in a row with unloaded dice

So we've shifted from evolution to bio genesis?

Damn, I'm prescient.

Still. If we are to apply these probablilities to the formation of a single cell, would not the same formula apply to the formation of a god? Only by several orders of magnitude greater? Which is more improbable, Magic, or randomness?

Further, even if we just extrapolate from THIS universe, when compared to the vast number of stars those numbers are not so high. We live on a minor planet on the fringe of a small galaxy, and it's teeming with life. Using the same sort of probabilities, that would make it LIKELY that there are many such worlds, UNLESS you believe we are "special". Which is what religion ultimately comes down to, a belief in being the "select few" instead of simply being part of natural phenomena. I'm just not that arrogant.

as to bio genesis vs. abiogenesis, the possibility of it was demonstrated in 2009. There are some videos on youtube relating to this, but I'm too lazy to go search them out right now. just put abiogenesis in the search window.

Oh, and one more thing. When engaging in conversation or debate regarding science, terminology is very important. You committed what I like to call the "religious fallacy" in stating that evolution is "just a theory". So is gravity.

In colloquial english, theory essentially means an idea or a series of them. It's definition is somewhat loose. In science, what is colloquially known as a theory is called a postulate. as in "I think this is what happens and how". A Theory, on the other hand, is very specific. It is still called theory because EVERYTHING in science is subject to new data and further attempts at disproof. A scientific theory is the best explanation of a given set of facts. It is used to make predictions and set up experiments. If a scientist calls something a theory, and he's honest, he is referring to our best understanding of OBSERVABLE FACTS and the predictions that can be made from that explanation. Everything is a theory. You likely learned this in pre algebra, but if it was taught as poorly as it was in my scholastic career, I don't blame you for not remembering it.

[RodeoX]

Whatever you think Rodger Penrose was trying to say, it was not an argument for intelligent design. I have spoken with him and I assure you he is a devout atheist. He does have some very interesting thoughts about consciousness and the "living state" of matter. Below is a link to the work he did with Stuart Hameroff. Mind-blowing stuff! 
I think they are onto something that could explain what life is.

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/penrose-hameroff/orchOR.html

[yogi]

The Orch-OR model has pretty much been discredited

Orch OR is no longer considered a good candidate for a quantum source of consciousness. In 2009, Jeffrey Reimers et al. showed that coherent Fröhlich condensates, the states Hameroff and Penrose implicated as the basis of Orch OR, could not exist in biological tissue. They found that coherent Fröhlich condensates of the sort required by Orch OR would require temperatures of between several thousand to several million kelvins, an environment not possible in biological tissue. If the energy required to keep the oscillators in a coherent state for the required 500 ms came from a chemical source, it would require the energy equivalent of a C-C bond being formed or broken every picosecond. The GTP mechanism proposed by Hameroff and Penrose would require the hydrolysis to GDP of approximately 4 or 5 GTP molecules every picosecond, a phenomenon that does not appear to occur in biological systems.

[RodeoX]

The Orch-OR model has pretty much been discredited

Orch OR is no longer considered a good candidate for a quantum source of consciousness. In 2009, Jeffrey Reimers et al. showed that coherent Fröhlich condensates, the states Hameroff and Penrose implicated as the basis of Orch OR, could not exist in biological tissue. They found that coherent Fröhlich condensates of the sort required by Orch OR would require temperatures of between several thousand to several million kelvins, an environment not possible in biological tissue. If the energy required to keep the oscillators in a coherent state for the required 500 ms came from a chemical source, it would require the energy equivalent of a C-C bond being formed or broken every picosecond. The GTP mechanism proposed by Hameroff and Penrose would require the hydrolysis to GDP of approximately 4 or 5 GTP molecules every picosecond, a phenomenon that does not appear to occur in biological systems.

Not so fast. lol
They have not hit it on the head, but considering how little we know about quantum weirdness they may still be onto something.  Recent findings include the discovery of "ordered" water in plants. That is consistent with a quantum tangling event. And quantum effects are now being spotted in bird migration and photosynthesis.
It may turn out to be nothing. still, something we don't understand is behind life. Quantum effects may play a role. We live in amazing times!

[Rassah]

Creationist come up with many explanations but are just discredited because they are creationists.  It is no longer about "good science" anymore.

They are not discredited because they are creationists, they are discredited either because the initial claims they have are proven to be incorrect, or because the explanations they provide aren't substantiated by any evidence. If they provided third-party reviewed and verifiable evidence of something specific, instead of, "it's NOT this, so it MUST be god," then they would not be discredited. But, alas, as most they can come up with it "It's NOT this..." and have their claim tested, and often dismissed.

I take it you did not watch the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ

I have, actually. The most it does it put some very minor (and not very well supported) doubt into the evolution theory, while not providing any evidence for any other theory. Falsifying evolution =/= automatically proving creationism.

Give me an example of how one kind has evolved into another kind?  Just one example? 

Diinasaurs have evolved into birds. There are tons of fossils that show raptor-type dinos slowly evolving into flightless birds (more like gliding birds), and eventually into the birds we have now. Likewise there is tons of evidence and fossil records showing a small furry creature that could be classified as a large rodent (I think, don't remember exactly), which slowly migrated into the ocean, and became what we now know as whales. Whales still have legs in their bodies, but they are just bone structures under the skin that don't actually do anything.

Sure there is plenty of evidence in the fossil record for adaptations within a kind for adaptations, but there is nothing that shows a monkey transitioning to human.

Actually, there are probably about 40 species found in the fossil records that show a gradual transition from primitive apes, to more advanced apes, to our many ape-like ancestors, to finally what we are like now. So, yes, there is plenty that shows that.

I will never believe evolution to be more than a theory until someone can show me that there has been changes from one kind to another.  Can you blame me for that?  You can say "It took billions of years" but no one was there billions of years ago.  So that, my friend, is a theory.  It is not a fact.   No matter how desperately you want it to be.

Actually, it took millions of years. There are plenty of evidence of evolution right now, though you guys dismiss it as "micro-evolution," despite mechanisms for macro and micro being exactly the same. Micro is just faster thanks to much faster reproduction. But we have plenty of evidence in the speciation in the gallapagos islands, plenty of fossil records linking one species to the next, and every time we run into a question that relates to evolution, and make a hypothesis based on what we know (such as finding two related fossils and expecting a link between them), we find that link eventually, and confirm that theory.
Ironically, you are not willing to believe in evolution because no one was around for that, but are willing to believe in Jesus, despite no one being around for that, either. None of the bible was written by people with eyewitness accounts. And, are you basically claiming that the only thing you are willing to believe in is something that was written down by us humans???

Also (as shown in the video) can you create a flower out of nothing?  Why not?  In the big scheme of things creating something simple like a rose should be easy enough but why can we as humans, who are fairly intelligent, not do that?  It had to be created from something somehow. 

Um, yes, we actually can. And we don't even really have to do much of anything. All we have to do is take some very basic single-cell plant-life, like algee, grow it near the boundary of where water hits land for a few million years until some of it adapts to growing on dry rocks instead of in the water, at which point it becomes moss. Then we have to grow that moss further inland, where it will start to compete for resources with other moss, and grow from the basic green flaky stuff you find on trees and rocks to the tall fuzzy stuff you find on the ground. Then you let it continue to fight and evolve until it becomes a flowering moss, where it reproduces better by growing long stalks of pollen, which can spread much further in the wind. Then that moss will evolve into taller grass-like moss, and eventually ferns. At the same time, you'll need to evolve some invertibrates into things like trylobites and crabs, and have those crawl out of the ocean and evolve into incects, since flowers are designed for polination by incects. Once you get those, those ferms will figure out how to attract incects all on their own, and become flowering bushes. And after a while of these bushes fighting to attract the best and fuzziest insects, you'll have a roze. Tada. That's actually how it all happened (and I took a summer vacation out in the forrest, looking for these various plant species and moss's, including complex fuzzy and flowering moss, when I was in 2nd or 3rd grade, so I put all that progression together at a rather early age)

The entire world points to intelligent design.  It is mathematically impossible for it not to be!

For a flower to just suddenly go *POOF* and appear, yes, you're right. For a flower to gradually evolve from algae from nothing? It's pretty much mathematically guaranteed.

Taking the physical variables into account, what is the likelihood of a universe giving us life coming into existence by coincidence? One in billions of billions? Or trillions of trillions of trillions? Or more?  Using probability I don't even know how you can argue with me?  See http://www.faizani.com/news/news_2003/math_impossibility.html

The probability is, I'm guessing, 1 out of let's say 1,000,000,000,000,000, or 1/1,000,000,000,000,000. However, let's say there are 1,000,000,000,000,000 planets in our universe (again, just guessing, too lazy to look up actual estimates). So the final equation comes out to be 1/1,000,000,000,000,000 * 1,000,000,000,000,000 = 1/1. In other words, the probability of life just popping up randomly in the universe is about 1 to 1. Probably even higher than that, actually. What is the probability of someone finding a correct bitcoin hash in the next 10 minutes, when the chances of finding one are 1 in 2,000,000,000,000,000 or whatever? The answer is about 1 to 1, since there are that many dice being thrown out there every 10 minutes. It's the same concept, except instead of millions of ASIC chips hashing millions of tries a second, there are millions of planets trying to create life millions of times a second.

But all of that said, I really don't want to argue with you Rassah.  We could fight all day about who is right or wrong.  To me all of these debates just come down to a matter of the heart.  There are people that do not want to believe in God no matter what. 

It's not a matter of the heart, it's a simpler matter of actual real evidence, and the theory that it fits into best. You cant really argue against that unless you bring conflicting evidence. Bringing questions into existing evidence only makes the theory a bit weaker. It doesn't automatically prove that a conflicting theory is better. As for not wanting to believe in god, it's also not a matter of want. Do you believe in Zeus? Or Santa Claus? Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? I would assume no, but is that because you simply don't want to believe in them? I don't think belief is ever a matter of "want."

Perhaps they have been "educated" to believe so or as it has been reiterated here again and again they just think God is a myth.  But there are those of us who have had personal encounters with Him that cannot be denied.  Is it right for you to say that my own encounter with God is not real?  You have not walked in my shoes so there is no way for you to say that.

I'm not saying your own encounter is not real. Just that it's not proof of anything to anyone else but you. Personal experiences are not proof of something, unless they can be duplicated, and the only explanation is the one you claim. Unfortunately, your experience can not be, and may have tons of explanations.

[Rassah]

For example, evolution in consciousness leads to evolved physical states rather than vice versa.

Can you explain how plankton evolved a higher conscious state, and thereby forced itself into a physical state of, say, seaweed?

[dank]

I liked your post rassah, but I beg to differ that personal encounters of god are proof of existence.  How else can you explain something ripping a hole into this dimension and interacting with you?

The truth is very simple.  Our consciousness is god, god is an intelligent creator.

For example, evolution in consciousness leads to evolved physical states rather than vice versa.

Can you explain how plankton evolved a higher conscious state, and thereby forced itself into a physical state of, say, seaweed?

I can explain how evolution in consciousness leads to evolved physical states.

Lost 50 pounds in 6 months after finding my soul and soul mate.  No working out, just being positive and with psychedelics which evolves consciousness.  I had invega, an anti-psychotic that blocks out your brain, shot into me against my will and I gained 20-30 pounds in a matter of weeks.  Now invega is nearly 70-80% out of me and I am getting back in shape fast.

This works on every scale.

[Rassah]

I was really hoping someone would give me a counter argument that it is mathematically impossible for the earth to evolve by chance.  

The calculations of British mathematician Roger Penrose show that the probability of universe conducive to life occurring by chance is in 10 to the 10123 power. The phrase "extremely unlikely" is inadequate to describe this possibility.

http://www.faizani.com/news/news_2003/math_impossibility.html

Call God imaginary if you want.  But if it was not God, there is still an intelligent designer.  It is mathematically proven.

First of all, this is for abiogenesis (life being formed spontaneously), not evolution. But this is another example of, "It is extremely improbable, yet here we are," and not "it is extremely improbable, so the Christian god did it." The answers to this argument could be any of the following:

* The calculation was wrong, because he didn't take into account the correct number of planets in the universe, the correct number of attempts that could happen every second, or some other mathematical fluke
* He may not have understood the abiogenesis process correctly, and the requirements for creating life may be much simpler than what we understood when he calculated that.
* Despite the extremely small probability, since the probability is >0, we got lucky
* Some god or alien being from another universe, where the chances of life creation are much higher, came into our unverse and created the first seeds of like, then left a very long time ago
* Some god-like deity, like what Christians and Jews believe in, created us millions of years ago, and have had no contact with us for the hundreds of thousands of years ever since, except for maybe that one time 2000 years ago.
* We are all just a figment of someone's immagination.
* Something completely different we haven't even thought or coonceived of yet

Plus a ton more I'm too lazy to think up of. Point is, Not(A) does not automatically equal B.

[termhn]

I liked your post rassah, but I beg to differ that personal encounters of god are proof of existence.  How else can you explain something ripping a hole into this dimension and interacting with you?

The truth is very simple.  Our consciousness is god, god is an intelligent creator.

For example, evolution in consciousness leads to evolved physical states rather than vice versa.

Can you explain how plankton evolved a higher conscious state, and thereby forced itself into a physical state of, say, seaweed?

I can explain how evolution in consciousness leads to evolved physical states.

Lost 50 pounds in 6 months after finding my soul and soul mate.  No working out, just being positive and with psychedelics which evolves consciousness.  I had invega, an anti-psychotic that blocks out your brain, shot into me against my will and I gained 20-30 pounds in a matter of weeks.  Now invega is nearly 70-80% out of me and I am getting back in shape fast.

This works on every scale.

I would want this tested in other people, and confirmation that the drug(s) you are taking don't have direct impact on your weight based on chemical effects.

However, I am not going to deny that what you said is true. We still know. Dry little about how consciousness works (as sited above by the work mentioned). However, this consciousness leading to physical states still has no relation to the existence of god, which is the topic of this thread. If you want to make a new one debating the merits of consciousness and how it affects physicality then by all means do so, I would be interested in talking about it.

[dank]

I was eating acid, not meth.  Acid connects you to the astral planes, higher dimensions, it connects you to god.  Under that state and thereafter, I believed in myself more, giving myself a better body.

Last time I ate an eighth of shrooms my body appeared to have lost a good bit of fat and gained some muscle mass.

You would have to see to believe, psychedelics can make any aging person appear years younger in hours.

I have a challenge to any atheist: take a psychedelic and see if you don't believe in god.

[Rassah]

I liked your post rassah, but I beg to differ that personal encounters of god are proof of existence.  How else can you explain something ripping a hole into this dimension and interacting with you?

I don't have to explain it. You don't either. You just have to make it happen again and again, so we can test it, and see what is going on. Until you do that, there is nothing to explain, or even talk about.

I can explain how evolution in consciousness leads to evolved physical states.

Lost 50 pounds in 6 months after finding my soul and soul mate.  No working out, just being positive and with psychedelics which evolves consciousness.  I had invega, an anti-psychotic that blocks out your brain, shot into me against my will and I gained 20-30 pounds in a matter of weeks.  Now invega is nearly 70-80% out of me and I am getting back in shape fast.

This works on every scale.

Your DNA is still the same, and you are still (sadly) capable of reproducing with the human species, so you haven't evolved in the slightest.

[termhn]

I'm not interested in harming my body even if it makes me believe in god. Do you not realize this? You are ingesting ACID! You're killing yourself, literally, cell by cell. Acids destroy living cells!

Also, I have no interest in whether you're taking acid or meth, that's your problem. I'm only interested in the results.

[termhn]

Oh, also, the very DEFINITION of psychedelic drugs is

A psychedelic substance is a psychoactive drug whose primary action is to alter cognition and perception.

They are also a sub-type of hallucinogens, which are defined as

Hallucinogens are a general group of pharmacological agents that can be divided into three broad categories: psychedelics, dissociatives, and deliriants. These classes of psychoactive drugs have in common that they can cause subjective changes in perception, thought, emotion and consciousness. Unlike other psychoactive drugs, such as stimulants and opioids, these drugs do not merely amplify familiar states of mind, but rather induce experiences that are qualitatively different from those of ordinary consciousness. These experiences are often compared to non-ordinary forms of consciousness such as trance, meditation, dreams, or insanity.

So, the very purpose of taking a psychedelic drug is to alter your perception of reality and create experiences that happened only in your mind.

[dank]

I liked your post rassah, but I beg to differ that personal encounters of god are proof of existence.  How else can you explain something ripping a hole into this dimension and interacting with you?

I don't have to explain it. You don't either. You just have to make it happen again and again, so we can test it, and see what is going on. Until you do that, there is nothing to explain, or even talk about.

I can explain how evolution in consciousness leads to evolved physical states.

Lost 50 pounds in 6 months after finding my soul and soul mate.  No working out, just being positive and with psychedelics which evolves consciousness.  I had invega, an anti-psychotic that blocks out your brain, shot into me against my will and I gained 20-30 pounds in a matter of weeks.  Now invega is nearly 70-80% out of me and I am getting back in shape fast.

This works on every scale.

Your DNA is still the same, and you are still (sadly) capable of reproducing with the human species, so you haven't evolved in the slightest.

I have hallucinated on demand many times of the same object, I know it can be replicated.

I also know that man's failure to see or measure what's there is not an excuse for lack of existence.  Everything exists everywhere, tune your brain to see it if you want to believe.  Try meditating or astral projecting.

To your second part, well, which is why I will fly before anyone else evolves to, cause I took the behalf to ingest a bunch of ego killing chemicals that strengthen my soul to do the impossible.

I'm not interested in harming my body even if it makes me believe in god. Do you not realize this? You are ingesting ACID! You're killing yourself, literally, cell by cell. Acids destroy living cells!

Also, I have no interest in whether you're taking acid or meth, that's your problem. I'm only interested in the results.

LSD is very non toxic, alcohol is 100 probably 1000 times more toxic.  And lets not forget the food we ingest, it's toxic, it kills us.  And the oxygen we breathe.  Poison.  Yes, we are surely slowly dying.  So rather than hiding from the inevitable, why not prepare for it?

Psychedelics literally give you a glimpse of the other side, a state of unity.  They give you profound peace and understanding when used properly.  They will help smoothen the transition to come.

So, the very purpose of taking a psychedelic drug is to alter your perception of reality and create experiences that happened only in your mind.

Yes, but that goes with everything.  Life is an experience created in your mind.  If you die, the illusion is cleared and you return to your state before life started, as god.

We are multidimensional beings, think about dreams.  Psychedelics enable your mind to connect to other dimensions that are always present even if not visible.

[termhn]

There's absolutely no point in arguing with you as you won't listen to reason. Do what you like, believe what you like but you might regret that fateful day when you decide you are ready to fly and fall off a roof, ending up dead. Then again, maybe you won't, seeing as how messed up you are on drugs.