A Logical proof of no god [Archive]

DeadWolfe

Mar20-04, 08:51 PM

DeadWolfe

Mar20-04, 08:54 PM

And if these assumptions are naive, your proof should be obvious. Goddamit why are you wasting my time??

Squeeze

Mar21-04, 02:42 AM

Originally posted by DeadWolfe
No. God does not need memory. Would you also suggest that to have a personality God needs a brain?

Ah...you don't get it. Ultimately a god is a collection of information, just as anything that exists is information. The fact that god is a product of information, no matter what universe you create or discover, then the information that makes god god is the true god. [g)]

Anything that is intelligent is a product of some kind of phsyics whether we've exprienced it or not.
Actually anything that exists is the product of some kind of physics...

DeadWolfe

Mar21-04, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by Squeeze
Ah...you don't get it. Ultimately a god is a collection of information, just as anything that exists is information.

Ah; this terrible gibberish.

Squeeze

Mar21-04, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by DeadWolfe
Ah; this terrible gibberish.

Sorry to burst your god bubble. [!:)]

modmans2ndcoming

Mar22-04, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by Squeeze
Ah...you don't get it. Ultimately a god is a collection of information, just as anything that exists is information. The fact that god is a product of information, no matter what universe you create or discover, then the information that makes god god is the true god. [g)]

Anything that is intelligent is a product of some kind of phsyics whether we've exprienced it or not.
Actually anything that exists is the product of some kind of physics...

ahem....with all due respect, I can point you to something that holds information with out needing memory....

the universe. it has no memory, but it holds lots and lots of structured meaningful information.

Squeeze

Mar22-04, 10:17 PM

Originally posted by modmans2ndcoming
ahem....with all due respect, I can point you to something that holds information with out needing memory....

the universe. it has no memory, but it holds lots and lots of structured meaningful information.

Well...your right the universe does hold information, but that doesn't mean the universe is not a form of memory. Re-read the definition of memory. To put into other words memory is just the perception of a state or information. So is a rock a form of memory...well yes. Its state is a testament of an event or events... [a)]

Squeeze

Mar22-04, 10:22 PM

Originally posted by DeadWolfe
Squeeze = Hideously dumb bastard

Information (and certainly memory) are PERCPETIONS of things that exist, you awful goddamn jackass.

Did I just hear the squeel of a pig? Oh! It was just Deadwolfe doing...you know what...

[g)]

modmans2ndcoming

Mar23-04, 12:48 AM

Sqweeze...that is such a cop out.

your definition of memory then accounts for every piece of matter in the universe.

if that is the case, then the universe cannot possible exist since memory must have existed before the universe, except, before the universe is a meaningless term since until the universe formed, there was no before. since there was no before, then memory could not have been in existence to make the universe and as such, the universe could not form.

I look at my hands and see myself, so the universe exists...so your definition of what memory is is not consistent.

you lose, go back and try to come up with a proof that actually is logically consistent next time.

gizzybeans

Mar23-04, 03:21 AM

Originally posted by Squeeze
The proof that there is no god:

The assumptions of god:

1. It has a personality or consciousness.
2. It is all-powerful and all knowing.
3. It controls all reality including the laws of matter or nature.
4. It has always existed.

Assumption 1 and 2 are critical in the proof that there is no god. In order to have consciousness and be all knowing requires a fundamental ability called memory. God must have some means to store information. Memory is a very definitive attribute; memory is the ability to sense information. In order to do that some state of something that functions as memory changes so as when acted on information can be determined. There is no other definition of memory and in fact the concept of memory is like the concept of a circle. The definition of a circle is all points along the arc are equaly distant from a common center. The circumference of the circle divided by it's diameter is always equal to pi. No matter how big or small the circle, no matter what type of universe you may find yourself in, the character of a circle remains.

Given that god must have memory and that part of god is a component of god which it did not create since god was not created and that component of god is governed by processes that abide by the definition of memory, then god is subject to elements that are governed by their nature and not the will of god! God ends up being a product of components one of which is memory.

This analysis from assumption 1 and 2 is an unavoidable conclusion, god is subject to the physics of the elements that it is composed of that are the governing processes of it's components. This truth disproves assumption 3 which states that god controls all reality including nature, since it's components govern how god operates on information and therefore is a form of nature that god does not control but is being controlled by.

Since god is controlled by elements that it is composed of it is not all-powerful and would suffer from problems of the uncertainty principle, which are based on whatever contraints of its nature, making it not all knowing!

Because god is composed of components and is therefore a subject of nature, it must devise methods to avoid destruction or entropy, so it must repair itself and must replenish energy.

Finally the elements god is made of had to exist first before they could compose into god, therefore god did not always exist.

If you prove that a being created life on earth you still haven't proved that the being is a god. It's not that there is no evidence of a god, the concept of god is a nonsensical notion based on naive assumptions. [!:)]

Well it all depends on if you view god as timelessly eternal or temporal

If god is temporal, or in time, that means he sees events as we see them, he experiences things along with us, and yes he would have to store information somewhere about the past or the future in order to be considered omniscient.

But, on the other hand, if you view god as timelessly eternal, or out of time, then with one glance God can see the past, the present, and the future simultaneously. It is like a huge mass of information before him, and he can see all at any time. In this case, he would not need to have memory, because everything is before him. I think the view of a timelessly eternal God is perferable to a temporal God because if God is in time, then that raises the question of who invented time? If God did, then is it allowed that He can invent something that would then limit his actions. It is like the old paradox, can God create a stone that he cannot lift? (one answer is since it is contradictory for him to create something that he cannot lift (because he is omnipotent), then he'll create it and be contradictory again and lift it) A temporal God is a slave to time, he can't go back in time and change events (if need be). But if he is outside of time, then it is indeed possible for him to invent time and not be hindered by his own creation.

Mr. Robin Parsons

Mar23-04, 06:34 AM

Thanks gizzybeans, you saved me the typing, infinite/infinity = No time.... the other three fall with that first one.....

Squeeze

Mar23-04, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by modmans2ndcoming
Sqweeze...that is such a cop out.

your definition of memory then accounts for every piece of matter in the universe.

if that is the case, then the universe cannot possible exist since memory must have existed before the universe, except, before the universe is a meaningless term since until the universe formed, there was no before. since there was no before, then memory could not have been in existence to make the universe and as such, the universe could not form.

I look at my hands and see myself, so the universe exists...so your definition of what memory is is not consistent.

you lose, go back and try to come up with a proof that actually is logically consistent next time.

No it's not a cop out, you think memory is some kind of temporal recording placing a time stamp on everything. Memory is simply a retained state, so yes all matter in the universe is a form of memory. If you understood how a memory system works then you wouldn't have this problem of understanding the proof. Using memory to record an event is only an application of memory. So memory as you view it as some some access scheme is not what is being defined in the proof. Memory is information, anything that sustains a state, even if its a mulititude of states, its still memory.

Squeeze

Mar23-04, 11:17 AM

Originally posted by gizzybeans
Well it all depends on if you view god as timelessly eternal or temporal

If god is temporal, or in time, that means he sees events as we see them, he experiences things along with us, and yes he would have to store information somewhere about the past or the future in order to be considered omniscient.

You view memory as a time stamping process, memory is retained information regardless of time. So a particle is a form of information, it retains this information as a virtue of its existance, there is no need for a container of memory, only retain states are required. So all matter (including virtual particles) is a form of memory.

I didn't think I would have to go over such basic principles of information theory on this board...

modmans2ndcoming

Mar23-04, 02:09 PM

Sqweeze.... even though I think you are very condescending, I will point out another very important part of your assumptions that conflict with your proofs conclusions.... read the entire post, and think about it before you respond.

if God has always existed, then he is outside our universe. since he is outside our universe, then he could have been in existence before our universe was created and could have been made from parts that existed outside our universe.

again, you have logic problems and need to reformulate your proof since you have not accounted for all your assumptions in your conclusion which has lead you to assume what you are trying to prove.

oh, and you still did not answer my charge in my pervious post. since by your definition of memory it can account for all matter in the universe, how is it then that the universe came into being at all since by your own admission, there was no memory before the universe was created.

you failed to see that I was not arguing with your definition of Memory, I was pointing out that your definition makes it impossible for the universe to exist given the conditions for existence you set forth in your original proof.

Squeeze

Mar23-04, 02:45 PM

Originally posted by modmans2ndcoming
if God has always existed, then he is outside our universe. since he is outside our universe, then he could have been in existence before our universe was created and could have been made from parts that existed outside our universe.

again, you have logic problems and need to reformulate your proof since you have not accounted for all your assumptions in your conclusion which has lead you to assume what you are trying to prove.

oh, and you still did not answer my charge in my pervious post. since by your definition of memory it can account for all matter in the universe, how is it then that the universe came into being at all since by your own admission, there was no memory before the universe was created.

you failed to see that I was not arguing with your definition of Memory, I was pointing out that your definition makes it impossible for the universe to exist given the conditions for existence you set forth in your original proof.

Again you have failed to understand the proof. It doesn't matter if god exits outside the universe, no more than it matters that a game developer exits outside of his game. All systems are aggregates of information; information requires an absolute base that can describe it. Whether this base are the attributes of matter, the collectives of atoms or something we haven't discovered yet it is unimportant. From the assumptions in the proof we know that god must be a collective of information, something as complex as a god cannot be described by a single cause. The functionality of god is determined by the information structures that describe what god is and what it knows. The fact that complex information requires elements to depict it means that such functionality as described in the assumptions happens because of the information that god is composed of. With out information there is no god.

Your argument about the definition of memory and the existence of the universe is wrong. Fundamentally matter does not need a cause, remember the conservation of energy law: Matter (that includes virtual particles) cannot be created nor destroyed. So in effect matter is eternal, its form may change, e.g. black holes, galaxies, stars, planets, animals, atoms, subatomic particles or things we haven't discovered yet, but matter never vanishes from existence.

The bottom line mod is any god is a product of some kind of nature, may not be the rules of our universe nor may it exist in our universe. Because of the fundamental nature of information god must be a subject of some kind of physics.

Please don't respond with a notion of memory being a temproral process or the need for a memory system like a computer memory or human memory, because that is not what is being described.

modmans2ndcoming

Mar24-04, 11:14 AM

your assumption of God being an aggregate of parts is where you really run into problem.

you conclude that god cannot exist since he must be made of parts that existed before the universe.....

all that proves is that he is outside our universe if he exists, nothing more.

DeadWolfe

Mar25-04, 12:18 AM

Besides, your 4 inital assumptions, while commonplace, are not neccessary to believe in God.

gizzybeans

Mar25-04, 02:02 AM

First a bit of bashing...

Originally Posted By Squeeze
Given that god must have memory and that part of god is a component of god which it did not create since god was not created and that component of god is governed by processes that abide by the definition of memory, then god is subject to elements that are governed by their nature and not the will of god! God ends up being a product of components one of which is memory.

I didn't think I would have to go over such basic principles of grammar theory on this board...

This is a key part of your proof, but it doesn't make any sense. How bout you take the time to reword it.

Originally posted by Squeeze
You view memory as a time stamping process, memory is retained information regardless of time. So a particle is a form of information, it retains this information as a virtue of its existance, there is no need for a container of memory, only retain states are required. So all matter (including virtual particles) is a form of memory.

I didn't think I would have to go over such basic principles of information theory on this board...

I don't think you even read what I wrote. But it doesn't matter, because I just reread what you wrote, and that is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read (as a disproof of God).

The definition of memory is the act of retaining and recalling past experience. Now read what I wrote. If God is out of time, then there is no past, present, or future. So, outside of time, there is no concept of memory. So infact, God does not need memory.

Now somehow you try to draw conclusions from Him having memory (which you say is a necessary fact – read my post to see why it’s not) with Him now having to be composed of the same elements that we are. The definition of God is the Creator of heaven and Earth. He created the elements of which we are made up. He is not made of something that he created, that is just absurd. So to then say he is an object of the nature of what he created (and limited by it, to the point where he must deal with entropy and decomposing (your examples)) is also absurd. Again, reread what I wrote. He cannot create something and then be limited by it. That is impossible. That is not the definiton of God. If you say that is what happens, then you aren't talking about God. You are talking about something/someone else.

Face it Squeeze, you are wrong. Deal with it. Also, rewrite that thing up there I told you to rewrite. Even though it is wrong, it be nice to be able to read it without having to stare at it for a few minutes trying to figure out what you are saying.

gizzybeans

Mar25-04, 02:28 AM

Originally posted by Squeeze
Again you have failed to understand the proof.

Maybe the proof is just wrong, and we understand it fine.

Squeeze

Mar25-04, 02:51 AM

Originally posted by modmans2ndcoming
your assumption of God being an aggregate of parts is where you really run into problem.

you conclude that god cannot exist since he must be made of parts that existed before the universe.....

all that proves is that he is outside our universe if he exists, nothing more.

No the proof has nothing to do with when the universe existed.

Squeeze

Mar25-04, 02:53 AM

Originally posted by DeadWolfe
Besides, your 4 inital assumptions, while commonplace, are not neccessary to believe in God.

Who the heck is taking about what is needed to believe in god?

Squeeze

Mar25-04, 03:15 AM

Originally posted by gizzybeans
The definition of memory is the act of retaining and recalling past experience. Now read what I wrote. If God is out of time, then there is no past, present, or future. So, outside of time, there is no concept of memory. So infact, God does not need memory.

You are the most ignorant jackass I've ever run into! You don't even know what time is!

If a computer reads a cdrom is it recalling a past experience or sensing information? If the machine reads its memory to excute a program is it recalling a past experience or sensing information?

Does god have information? To be all knowing I would think that it would be necessary to have information! The information must be represented in some way and that representation is a form of memory. Your ignorance of what memory is really trying my patience. You're so backward that you think memory is recalling past experiences!

To get back to your lame explanation of time and god...You idiot time is cause and effect! Get it? Cause and effect! If god senses information that is a CAUSE and EFFECT, therefore TIME! Why do you think time is relative? Why do you think Einstein’s theory of relativity predicted relative time? You think time is a thread, or spatial dimension, its neither! Do a search on google and READ WHY CLOCKS SLOW DOWN DUE TO VELOCITY AND GRAVITY. Oh you might have to review some basic TRIGONOMETERY!

gizzybeans go BACK TO SCHOOL![*(]

selfAdjoint

Mar25-04, 10:31 AM

Cool the passion, squeeze. Contradiction we encourage, insults not. (A principle I need to review myself!)

modmans2ndcoming

Mar26-04, 08:50 AM

shashi

Mar26-04, 09:13 AM

Friends,

This is a big question whether god exists or not. You will be pleased to know that this question which has been confusing the people since time immemorial has been finally answered an Indian cosmo theorist who is considered an authority on Cosmology and Metaphysics, namely Dr. Raj Baldev, author of Two Big Bangs Created the Universe (Formed in Eternal Space).

You will be pleased to know that this theory and its discussion are available on different physics forums and its details can also be had from Google.com by searching Two Big Bangs, being so important and global.

Dr Raj Baldev in his theory of Two Big Bangs has dealt with the creation of the universe right from the beginning tracing the history of 1 trillion 250 thousand billion years before the Big Bang. He has scientifically under the laws of physics proved how and when the birth of God happened and how to be sure whether it is in existence or not. This he did to remove the confusion in the mind of Stephen Hawking, the great physist from England.

The theory of Two Big Bangs is on Cosmology explaining how the universe was created but the author feels that each structure of any building needs a builder, an architect, engineer and programmer without which the explanation of any structure cannot be taken as complete. Would you take trouble of reading the book titled Two Big Bangs Created the Universe (Formed in Eternal Space). You can send me an email for my personal opinion if further desired by you. Or have the information of query log on www.twobigbangs.com

Shashi

modmans2ndcoming

Mar26-04, 09:17 AM

is there any reason this "authority" needs to spam this website with comments promoting his theory?

Squeeze

Mar26-04, 01:12 PM

Sqweeze, rather than call people names, why don't tou accept the fact that your proof fails at the points we all have poionted to.

what is worse is the comments you make to defend the proof make no sense in context of what you said. in the proof you make a big deal about one thing, then to defend against what one of us say, you contradict the point in your proof.

it would do you well to re-read it now, about a week later, and fix the problems with it.

Mod,

I've clearly stated my points in the proof and in my responses to you. The fact that you admit they make no sense to you proves you lack the education to underestand them. So I retierate; go back to school. [:D]

modmans2ndcoming

Mar26-04, 01:23 PM

Squeeze

Mar26-04, 01:36 PM

I hardly lack the education to understand them. I have pointed to the problems with your proof and you have ignored them.

I am not the only person who has called you on the problems. so if you need to claim that everyone else is wrong and just not educated or intelligent enough to understand, then that is your prerogative, however it is a very arrogant of you to do so.

I also believe that you are not as educated as you seem to believe I must be to understand your comments. I base that on the condescension and names you have called people who have not said anything to call for such reaction.

Mod,

I really get frustrated when some one retierates their same argument over and over again when I have explained where their arguments are in error. I have addressed the problem with your notions of memory and time. You don't seem to get it. I can only conclude that you lack a math and science background.

And ah...I've only called you a "name" which I believe was well deserved...

modmans2ndcoming

Mar26-04, 01:46 PM

Squeeze

Mar26-04, 02:07 PM

I believe you called that other fellow a "moron".

and no one deserves name calling....

it is in fact a sign that the person cannot hold a conversation at an intelligent level, which is why intelligent people should refrain from using such words and tactics.

I am not going to argue with you any more about memory and such. one of us is not getting it, so rather than continue with this, I think it will be more productive to just let it be and each consider ourselves to be correct.

let the others decided how they may.

Mod,

You are such a egotist. I only called you a "name", go review the past posts. I asked you to look up references regarding time, rather than do that and educate youself you rant on on how I'm wrong. I gave examples where memory is not recalling past expereinces, rather than admit your wrong you rant on about being right with no arguments as to why.

So mod run away and lick your wounds...There is no all powerful god but only the nature of eternal matter. Matter need not behave in other universe as it does in our universe, but matter is all powerful.

gizzybeans

Mar26-04, 02:27 PM

You are the most ignorant jackass I've ever run into! You don't even know what time is!

If a computer reads a cdrom is it recalling a past experience or sensing information? If the machine reads its memory to excute a program is it recalling a past experience or sensing information?

Does god have information? To be all knowing I would think that it would be necessary to have information! The information must be represented in some way and that representation is a form of memory. Your ignorance of what memory is really trying my patience. You're so backward that you think memory is recalling past experiences!

To get back to your lame explanation of time and god...You idiot time is cause and effect! Get it? Cause and effect! If god senses information that is a CAUSE and EFFECT, therefore TIME! Why do you think time is relative? Why do you think Einstein’s theory of relativity predicted relative time? You think time is a thread, or spatial dimension, its neither! Do a search on google and READ WHY CLOCKS SLOW DOWN DUE TO VELOCITY AND GRAVITY. Oh you might have to review some basic TRIGONOMETERY!

gizzybeans go BACK TO SCHOOL![*(]

Jeez, don't get your panties in a bunch. Let's calm down Squeeze.

First off, my "lame" explanation of time and God is a explanation that has been used for thousands of years. It is standard Philosophy of Religion 101. Please, do some reading, i'm not saying anything new or revolutionary. I'm just repeating old facts, old facts that have long ago settled little problems like the one you have claimed to have divised yourself. Do you really think no one has pondered over this matter before? It has been debated hundreds of times, each time the debate has concluded that your disproof is flawed. You speak of time as relative, but really does that have any relevance on what I said? When the clock slows down, it is still changing, therefore time is still being measured, because it is measured as the change from one instance to the next. From Webster Unabridged Dictionary: time - "the system of those sequential relations that any event has to any other, as past, present ,or future." If the universe's temperature would suddenly drop from 3K to 0K today, time would stop. Why? Because we are no longer changing, we are freezing to death (in this example). I have pointed out the flaws of your proof to you, so have the others on this board. It is up to you to consider them or to continue to insult people ignorantly and to make yourself seem more foolish with each reply.

Also, memory can be defined many ways. Recalling past experiences is just one of them. That aside, it doesn't even matter if we are talking about the same memory or not. I think you have to clearly define that there is gonna be a difference between how a computer stores "memory" and the "memory" of God if such a thing exists. But to have memory, I think that would mean God would have to be a changing being. To gain memory, one must change. But God cannot change, that is a fundamental property of God. Therefore, I don't think you can have a God that has "memory" as we have come to know it, unless he has had from eternity the same information stored forever. I explained how this is possible. Please, just ignore it, and continue to believe that it isn't possible.

There is a concept in Philosophy of Religion that you need to understand. If particular definition of God doesn't work, then it takes but a little redefinition and it will now work. Your proof does not work for all cases of God. The image of God can be redefined slightly and that slight redefinition renders your proof invalid.

By the way, I don't believe in God either, but your disproof of God just won't cut it, i'm sorry.

gizzybeans

Mar26-04, 02:32 PM

is there any reason this "authority" needs to spam this website with comments promoting his theory?
yeah i know, there are like 10 other threads about this theory.

Squeeze

Mar26-04, 02:49 PM

Jeez, don't get your panties in a bunch. Let's calm down Squeeze.

First off, my "lame" explanation of time and God is a explanation that has been used for thousands of years. It is standard Philosophy of Religion 101. Please, do some reading, i'm not saying anything new or revolutionary. I'm just repeating old facts, old facts that have long ago settled little problems like the one you have claimed to have divised yourself. Do you really think no one has pondered over this matter before? It has been debated hundreds of times, each time the debate has concluded that your disproof is flawed. You speak of time as relative, but really does that have any relevance on what I said? When the clock slows down, it is still changing, therefore time is still being measured, because it is measured as the change from one instance to the next. From Webster Unabridged Dictionary: time - "the system of those sequential relations that any event has to any other, as past, present ,or future." If the universe's temperature would suddenly drop from 3K to 0K today, time would stop. Why? Because we are no longer changing, we are freezing to death (in this example). I have pointed out the flaws of your proof to you, so have the others on this board. It is up to you to consider them or to continue to insult people ignorantly and to make yourself seem more foolish with each reply.

Your arguments of change and god being excluded from changed are fundamentally wrong. If god necessitates a will it is causing a change. Because god is an element in the reaction it is experiencing time. The reason for the reference to relativity was to clarify what time is, which is cause and effect. It doesn't matter if god is the cause; it is still a part of cause and effect and therefore experiences time.

Also, memory can be defined many ways. Recalling past experiences is just one of them. That aside, it doesn't even matter if we are talking about the same memory or not. I think you have to clearly define that there is gonna be a difference between how a computer stores "memory" and the "memory" of God if such a thing exists. But to have memory, I think that would mean God would have to be a changing being. To gain memory, one must change. But God cannot change, that is a fundamental property of God. Therefore, I don't think you can have a God that has "memory" as we have come to know it, unless he has had from eternity the same information stored forever. I explained how this is possible. Please, just ignore it, and continue to believe that it isn't possible.

The mechanism of how information is stored is not the issue but that there must be some scheme and that scheme is not a creation by god. Because god requires the functionality of memory to be god it is therefore a product of systems whose nature create god.

There is a concept in Philosophy of Religion that you need to understand. If particular definition of God doesn't work, then it takes but a little redefinition and it will now work. Your proof does not work for all cases of God. The image of God can be redefined slightly and that slight redefinition renders your proof invalid.

Go ahead and try...

modmans2ndcoming

Mar26-04, 07:50 PM

hey squeeze...I believe Gizzybeans did my work for me...he has just proven that you called some one other than me a name.

I am not licking any wounds...IU am stating a fact that I will not agree with you and you will not agree with me, neither of us will concede to the other, so I am done arguing and reading to your abusive, condensing words. I tried to end this politely once. so again, I am done with you. I do not care if you are done with me or not. others who read the thread can decide for themselves.

SoumyaBanerjee

Mar27-04, 07:21 AM

i also believe that there is no such thing named god.it is also can be proved in various way.

Jin314159

Mar27-04, 09:35 AM

The proof that there is no god:

The assumptions of god:

1. It has a personality or consciousness.
2. It is all-powerful and all knowing.
3. It controls all reality including the laws of matter or nature.
4. It has always existed.[!:)]

You're personifying god too much. What if you break God down to this most fundamental components, namely intelligence and energy?

Lord Flasheart

Mar27-04, 10:16 AM

Squeeze, have you ever had an imaginary friend? If you didn't, now you do.

I like to think of Humanity as a nuclear family. A single child represents the religious folk, and the parents represent the scientific community. (mother) The child wets his bed, and his parents discovers the stain the next morning.

"Who wet the bed?" she asks. The child, naive and desperate for an explanation, blames it on his newly created imaginary friend, God. This created entity is created by man, and questioned by man.

Who broke the china?
God.

Who is eating the pastries?
God is.

And a bit more complicated/modern...

Who created man?
God did.

What created the universe?
God!

He is really just a phantasm created by man to explain everything that humanity can't explain. The child doesn't know, so he makes it up. The parents are striving for an explanation. They know the child lies when he utilizes his imaginary friend. Therefore, they try to teach the child to grow up.

Perhaps the religious people are only creating God because they haven't met anyone else besides ourselves yet. If we met different entities from far away, what would happen?

Would the child no longer need an imaginary friend in the presence of other people?

Combust away.

Squeeze

Mar27-04, 01:27 PM

You're personifying god too much. What if you break God down to this most fundamental components, namely intelligence and energy?

That's doesn't change anything, intelligence is an adaptive system. I was reluctant to go down the road of defining intelligence because technology hasn't reproduced it to a human level yet. All the evidence proves that the human brain's neural connections are the basis of our intelligence and emotions. Many then argue the ghost in the machine, you can then argue about animal intelligence, but the Hindus will argue that animals have souls too. Others who accept the neural basis of human intelligence then argue something about quantum consciousness. So I am sticking to the parts or functions that are clearly defined and measurable.

To make a long story short; intelligence requires information and information must be represented with some kind of structure, the more complex the information the more elements required to represent it.

TENYEARS

Mar27-04, 02:25 PM

Well squeeze 1 for 4 isn't bad.

felipefas

May7-04, 06:09 PM

Are you all trying to play God?. The meaning of God is what is in question. Not the definition. God as an idea was created to represent the creator of things we cannot understand. The moment we learn how anything works, it is not an event made by God anymore but the result of some force that must be created by God. In other words, God by definition is the creator of anything we are too ignorant to know yet. Trying to explaing God or attribute any characteristics (!memory!, PLEASE) is putting him in a level with us or below us. He automatically stops being God. If you would ever want to get an insight on God. Try a human psychology course.

TsunamiJoe

May8-04, 03:42 PM

lord your right and thats my belief but im going to pretend there was a god and considering i went through 12 yrs of private education learning about the christian god im also going to assume squeeze is takling about that one

one of the posts touched on the principle that god is outside the universe - which is true, and in every religion one thing it clearly states is that god doesnt live in the physical realm but in the "metaphysical" realm

secondly god doesnt need energy for he doesnt live in the physical realm thus meaning every reason why a human persay needs energy is irrelevant to god

thirdly squeeze your talking as if god is a hard drive - which he is not im going to relate god to a very rich person - the person wants a car he gets it why you ask? because he can. god wants to create the universe he does why you ask? because he can. its nothing to do with knowlage of god - think of god as being something with the right answers- not because god has tried and failed but because this god is required for excistance to be applicable

and squeese to me it sounds like your some small child who has no religous education or knowlage of any sort and your trying to disproove god - well im going to end this thing with saying the classical term of without a god where did everything come from? youll say the big bang but i say whered the big bang come from? youll say tons of various differint answers of which i do not wish to deplore at the moment but where did those come from? an all powerful god(s) is the only way to proove any of it. Why? because we werent there and we dont know who was and we didnt cause it and we cant recreate it yet.

additionally i can probobly guess your going to say something like oh yah well then where did god come from? well like i said the physical world depends on a history of matter, where as the "metaphysical" world does not thats why its "meta" because all physical rules are inversed or inapplicable

Deca-of-CD

May8-04, 04:50 PM

"If God created the world, where was He before Creation?....Know that the world is uncreated, as time itself is, without beginning or end."
-Mahapurana

(I probably spelled the name wrong, though.. I had to paraphrase since a friend is borrowing my hyperspace book..)

Okay.. To start: TsunamiJoe...PLEASE, learn how to type correctly..

"well im going to end this thing with saying the classical term of without a god where did everything come from? youll say the big bang but i say whered the big bang come from? youll say tons of various differint answers of which i do not wish to deplore at the moment but where did those come from? an all powerful god(s) is the only way to proove any of it. Why? because we werent there and we dont know who was and we didnt cause it and we cant recreate it yet."

I am going to take this apart, step by step..so you don't miss anything..

"Well, I'm going to end this thing by saying the Classical term of 'without a God, where did everything come from?'"

That just leaves yourself wide open for someone to say "Where did said God come from? Surely, (s)he could not have just..been here, or there--in the metaphysical plane--, without something else being here..."

For God to exist, there has to be Humans to exist to create God in their minds--into what they percieve..

"You'll say the big bang, but I say where'd the big bang come from? You'll say tons of various different answers of which I do not wish to explore at the moment, but where did these come from?"

Personally, as someone who likes physics, I think the Big Bang theory needs some work.... Still, as I said a few lines up.. You said 'where did these come from?' .. Assuming you mean the answers, they, again, are what Humans percieve.. Not all humans percieve them, thus this thread is here..

"An all powerful God(s) is the only way to prove any of it. Why? Because we weren't there and we don't know who was and we didn't cause it and we can't recreate it yet."

Why....why must there be some almighty entity that can simply create such a complex universe in '6 days'.. And don't anyone even ****ing think of using that bull**** "Oh, well.. A 'day' way back then could have been thousands of years..".. So if you just had that thought, bash your skull in with a hammer.. The point is, there is no God.. The universe is a self-consistent being in itself, constantly changing and forming new materials that create planetary objects and the like..

And... That book you Christians read..the Bible..... Is nothing but a fictitional piece of literature that people read for moral, ethical, etc purposes.. In fact, if you read the Bible as literal (as many people I know do--who happen to be narrow-minded fools), you literally are a ****ing idiot.. The Bible is just a story book..a compilation of numerous stories revolving around one man, whom I believe existed.. as a Rabbi--but certainly no Messiah. Because there is no God..

felipefas

May9-04, 01:18 PM

Deca of CD those are very harsh words to state a point that cannot be proved. I'm I mistaken or you belive in causality? God does not control fate but men control fate. In which case God is mostly (as it has been with the Gods of every other culture) a resort to our innerselves insecurities. At least once in your life you have been in a position where you wish your life wasn't completely in your hands but in the hands of some higher force that may feel pity in you. Before trying to take new found knowlege which is still being studied (big ban) and assume that it is the answer to thousands of years of mental evolution, try to understand our real knowledge of God. The idea of God didn't just happen to come about in the times of Moses or in the time of Jesus Christ, or in the time of Mohammed or in the times of the Mayas and Aztecas or American Indians....blahh...blahh...blahh. Before laws there was religion. The ten comandments may seem trivial on todays standards but it wasn't quite so back then. Killing somebody during a fight over market prices may have been seen as routine. For the higher authorities to wish to have sex with any woman no matter her civil status was probably painful but an every day problem. Ten commandments gave a written law that allowed society to evolve in a healthy way under the watchful eyes of an unknown force bigger than you.

Today, technology has an explanation for most things we used to value as deities. Including the beginning of this universe and many others we don't even know. We can now incorrectly assume that because we understand how things work, we don't need anymore of a God figure. If we can clone...are we Gods ourselves? If we know as much as God does...then where is he? Maybe so if you take in consideration that the individual is vulnerable without society. Leave a modern man in the middle of a deserted island all by himself and he will inevitably die because he is not independent anymore. He is subject to the Chinese or Italian (depending on your wealth) to dress. To the Indian for its rice and to the educated class for his health problems. If the conscept of society has replaced the concept of God then this may be a healthy solution to this discussion. In which case, the only way we can survive phase I (as per Dr. Kiku's book on the Theory of Hyperspace) is to have society follow all those rules that appear in that book (as you say) some christians read called the Bible. Or read the Koran or the Tao or any other religion oriented book out there. They will all agree on the same thing. We need of a certain order which must be bigger than ourselves to keep track on society. Don't get so caught up on the wording. There is much more about it that meets the eye

Deca-of-CD

May9-04, 06:10 PM

"Before trying to take new found knowlege which is still being studied (big bang) and assume that it is the answer to thousands of years of mental evolution, try to understand our real knowledge of God."

I did not say, nor insinuate, that I thought the big bang is right or the correct thing to think... I said the opposite, actually..

But you expect me to believe that some entity was just sitting around on a metaphysical plane and decided to create a universe in the phyiscal?... How is it that said entity is even in existence in the first place? How is it that this entity is in the metaphysical plane instead of the physical, yet he can control both? ... And that is not the main reason I berate and bash religion.....

The main reason is that most religions command you to not question..to not wonder.... SImply to just blindly follow..just as a cult.. It seems quite odd that many people who are seemingly smart do not want to 'waste their time on petty things such as why we are here', yet spend all of their time on wanting to bang their secretary at work..... I don't know why that analogy came out, it's just what I typed v.v

Imparcticle

May9-04, 08:53 PM

"If God created the world, where was He before Creation?....Know that the world is uncreated, as time itself is, without beginning or end."
-Mahapurana

Hm, if time is without beginning or end, then it cannot be "uncreated". Apparently, this Mahapurana fellow is not familiar with what time is, and existentialist philosophy. Anyway, it is impossible for there to be nonexistence in the first place. If there was such a thing as non existence, then nonexistence would have to exist, therefore contradicting the meaning of nonexistence.

The universe is a self-consistent being in itself, constantly changing and forming new materials that create planetary objects and the like..

You are asserting that the universe is alive? If the universe could have always been, then what's to stop God from always being?

That book you Christians read..the Bible..... Is nothing but a fictitional piece of literature that people read for moral, ethical, etc purpose

I suggest you get your facts straight. There have been multiple instances where historians have admitted that the historical references made in the bible are infact, true. That is, consistent with the history books. There have been quite a few documentaries concerning this on the History Channel. Though I could not find
exactly what I was looking for on the History Channel web site ( ironically, I found an essay concerning the history of biblical archeaology), I found another site:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aiia/aiia-arch1.html

Note the author is a PhD archaologist. I believe his opinion must have some weight (as he has studied to the highest degree).

In fact, if you read the Bible as literal (as many people I know do--who happen to be narrow-minded fools),

Please don't generalize. Some people do take some parts a little too literally(so literally, I wonder if there is any common sense left in this world....). The book of revelation for example recites Armegeddon (sp?). The whole book is entirely symbolic; to understand the symbolism, knowledge of ancient history, and thorough knowledge of the bible is extremely helpful.
While others do not take it literally. Almost every Christian I know do not take it literally because they are well educated.

whom I believe existed.. as a Rabbi--but certainly no Messiah.
Why do you believe this? A messiah, by the way, does not neccesarily have to have some sort of paranormal power. A messiah by definition is a "liberator, a savior". Someone who does save many people/animals can indeed be considered a messiah of sorts.

Because there is no God

To restate, according to your logic: "whom I believe existed...as a [religious leader]--but certainly no [liberator]. Because there is no God..."
There have been many great leaders who have saved his/her people in history. Because by definition, a liberator (which is anologous with "messiah") is (this definiton is actually for the root word, liberate) "To set free, as from oppression, confinement, or foreign control." Take Hitler. He oppressed the Jews who resided in the premises of Germany. Then, with the help of the U.S. Americans, the Jews were freed. The U.S. Americans where the liberators; the messiah.
When analyzed this way, your last statement "Because there is no God" is irrelavant to your aforementined statements.

Imparcticle

May9-04, 09:01 PM

I did not say, nor insinuate, that I thought the big bang is right or the correct thing to think... I said the opposite, actually..

That it is incorrect??

But you expect me to believe that some entity was just sitting around on a metaphysical plane and decided to create a universe in the phyiscal?... How is it that said entity is even in existence in the first place?

There is no PHYSICAL evidence to prove it otherwise. Unless you would like to present some?

How is it that this entity is in the metaphysical plane instead of the physical, yet he can control both? ... And that is not the main reason I berate and bash religion.....

Please define what "metaphyscal" is and "physical" is in your argument (so we may interpret it in full context. I am not refering to a dictionary definition)

The main reason is that most religions command you to not question..to not wonder.... SImply to just blindly follow..just as a cult..
Yes some do and some don't. Be more specific. It is logical to disagree with a religion that does not allow any inquiry concerning the specific branch of religion's beliefs. Take Jehovah's Witnesses for example. They research everything that constitutes their religious beliefs by applying science and history. They question all their beliefs.

It seems quite odd that many people who are seemingly smart do not want to 'waste their time on petty things such as why we are here',
Why is it a waste of time to contemplate our reason for being here? It is a perfectly logical contemplation.

yet spend all of their time on wanting to bang their secretary at work..... I don't know why that analogy came out, it's just what I typed v

What do you mean by "bang their secretary at work"?

Deca-of-CD

May9-04, 09:20 PM

Mahapurana is a book, I think...

And what of the thousands of Jews in Egypt as slaves.. There is no recording in history of Jews ever being slaves in Egypt..

In fact.. There are several instances in history in which are only stated in the bible! ..

And, the many unknown writers of the bible can just as easily take some event that actually happened and incorporate it into their writings..

Just as Dean Koontz did in the book Lightning.. One of the characters .. ends to Britain in the 1940's and tells British Prime Minister (forgot his name) to bomb Berlin at..certain points.... (I typed it like so... so that if anyone reading, or wanting to read, the book won't have it ruined... If you want exactly how it happens and all, PM me, or ask me on IRC..Imparcticle :smile: )

And I just got caught up again in IRC.. So I forgot what else I was going to say.....

Deca-of-CD

May9-04, 10:01 PM

Damn, you posted a second time?... Bah, now I have to reply to that...

Please define what "metaphyscal" is and "physical" is in your argument (so we may interpret it in full context. I am not refering to a dictionary definition)

I am...

What do you mean by "bang their secretary at work"?

..I was referring to the rich, businessmen type religious people..........

felipefas

May10-04, 01:51 PM

"But you expect me to believe that some entity was just sitting around on a metaphysical plane and decided to create a universe in the phyiscal?... How is it that said entity is even in existence in the first place? How is it that this entity is in the metaphysical plane instead of the physical, yet he can control both? ... And that is not the main reason I berate and bash religion....."

I understand what you mean. However, there is an example that may help my point of view. A cell. A human cell standing alone is quite a living thing. It eats, it defecates, it breaths and makes energy and reconstitutes itself. It duplicates. You could argue that the God for this cell is a Stem cell (the first original cell where every other one came from). However, if you looked at the cells as a group and realize that they are part of something bigger (a liver). Now the cell itself or the stem cell have a different meaning and the sum of all together is the real meaning of their existence. You could still argue that the liver is only part of the digestive system and itself is of no use but the fact that is part of something bigger makes us its God (I hope is not confusing). If you believe God to be an entity (like an individual), then you are expecting to find God within the cells of the body. Just think that you are a finger of God and Imparticle is a hair. As individuals we are lets say disposable. However, as a whole we create a much bigger entity in which the idea of God is better fitted. I think that when Jesus says that he is the son of God and that we are his brothers, he is also saying that we are as sons or daughters of God as much as he was. We all (in another plane) form part of this God. Therefore, he is still much bigger than us to understand. If we weren't around to create an idea of God, would he still exist?

Deca-of-CD

May11-04, 09:58 PM

I just woke up, so the majority of your post makes no sense....

If we weren't around to create an idea of God, would he still exist?

Depends on what you would call existence.... Even if something is not thought of, thought up, or used in some way...it can still exist... Unless, you mean, is the only reason we have a God and religion is because of the human's imagination and need to have some "fool-proof" system in which nothing ever goes wrong and that when you die, to go to a magical place of happiness..

felipefas

May12-04, 12:55 PM

Yes and no. God is created by us but does not exist only in the imagination as a fool proof technique. The moment you are born you are adding to that energy complex we call God. So (again, it is only my opinion) You wouldn't think of God as an individual or something made up but something that will exist without you however, you add to it in a positive or negative way.

You know how a two dimensional person, if lifted into a three dimensional plane, would see different slices of the person as it's coming up? That person wouldn't see a being as a whole but as different slices which he envisions as individual entities. For example: by the feet he would see two slices. By the hip he would see a large slice. By the arms he would see three different slices, and so on. In our dimension, we would only see our individual selfs without assuming that all those individuals in another dimension might be part of a whole being. We I think in those lines, the idea of God is more meaninful than saying: We make it up

Deca-of-CD

May12-04, 04:06 PM

You mean to say as.. The universe is God?

felipefas

May12-04, 05:28 PM

You mean to say as.. The universe is God?

yes but in a different plane. Or, the universe makes up God

Deca-of-CD

May12-04, 10:40 PM

So.. you mean that God is not a single entity, but is everything that is... is 'God'...... I think I just confused myself with my own words... :cry:

shadowman

May13-04, 10:34 AM

God does not need a memory. becuase we are human matter, we need this. by saying god needs a memory, you are putting God in the same boat as us. However, God is different because God is NOT human. God is a spirit. He has no human atribute. Since He has no human atribute, how can you limit Him as we are limited? How can you limit a spirit at all? It is impossable because the Bible quotes Him as being..." seperated from this world", therefore not limiting Himself to anything. God however, can be limited. He can limit himself only by himself. This is why he chooses not to sin. he could, but he does not want to. sorry, but if they could not have proven god wrong in the last two thousand years, i dont think you have much of a shot either... If you want to know more about my God feel free to e-mail me and I will tell you how you can come to know Him.

Deca-of-CD

May13-04, 08:10 PM

Why the hell would I want to 'know' some fictitional character from -your- religion, which I am guessing is Christianity...

I'm going with Felipefas, in a way... Humans percieve the universe as God--or, they concieve the idea of God because they can not understand, or do not attempt to understand, anything of the universe...

TENYEARS

May14-04, 04:19 PM

felipefas

May15-04, 10:31 AM

We all seem to think differently about God no matter what. Shadowman sees God as an individual somewhere out there all-knowing, all-seeing.

I can't understand what ten-years mean by the opposite. You mean to say that God perceive us?

"o.. you mean that God is not a single entity, but is everything that is... is 'God'...... I think I just confused myself with my own words..."

I think that's closer to what I'm referring to. It shouldn't take away from the idea that God does exist. Just not as an individual but as a collection of the energy that exists in all the universe of which we form part. I guess whitout proof there is not much that can be said. However, the picture seems to fit better everyone beliefs on God. We posses control over our actions, however, they are regulated by this much bigger force. Every time we do something good for others it reflects back on us. Not only materially but energetically. Look at the Dalai Lama, a good person that inspires only happiness and goodness. And every time we do something bad to others, it haunts our consciousness (there is a thread going on conciousness and weather it exists in other planes we don't know about), and our health. We've got plenty of examples of those.

Hagie190

May16-04, 07:46 PM

No disrespect intended but people have been proving and disproving the existence of god since the time of Isaac Newton so what your doing is nothing new.

Chrono

May16-04, 10:03 PM

No disrespect intended but people have been proving and disproving the existence of god since the time of Isaac Newton so what your doing is nothing new.

Weren't they doing that before his time in the field of philosophy, like with Aquinas and St. Augustine?

Deca-of-CD

May16-04, 11:03 PM

Hagie... Did we ****ing say (someone may have, but i didnt) that we are the first people to think "oh.. there is no god"...hbfs;lc e.. **** I hate idiots..

addman

May18-04, 12:53 PM

why do people need to invent the idea of god to explain things such as the big bang?
The reason for this is because no one currently understands how the big bang happened. A simple

answer for this which is put forward; "God made the universe". Their argument for this statement is

to put forward questions such as "What was there before the big bang? there must have been

something. That something must be infinately powerfull, ergo it must be God".

This reasoning for me does not answer the question, it just creates more problems. New questions

arise; "what is god?", "How did God come into existance?"
The second question is usually answered "God is infinate, he has always existed". The problem i

have with these people is that they can believe this argument, but dismiss the argument that the

big bang just came into existance. Which is essentially the same sort of question. In effect they are explaining nothing. Why not just remove the whole idea of a God altogether and simplify the problem?

I hope that makes as much sense typed out as it did in my head.

Deca-of-CD

May19-04, 05:28 PM

I agree, addman..

And the next time a religious person states something from the Bible quoted as a "miracle" is getting stabbed in the face with a 0.7 mm lead pencil...

shadowman

May21-04, 12:46 PM

shadowman

May21-04, 12:49 PM

Why not just remove the whole idea of a God altogether and simplify the problem?

Why not just remove the whole idea of the big bang theory and simplify the problem a better way?

selfAdjoint

May21-04, 03:46 PM

Because there is EVIDENCE for the big bang.

TsunamiJoe

May21-04, 05:15 PM

ah yes i believe that also everything is literaly made up of something bigger - always since i was small i thought that the eaerth was just a dirty drop of rainwater falling somewhere

always wondered what would happen when we hit the ground...

Gokul43201

May24-04, 12:12 AM

Overdose

May24-04, 03:15 AM

i have a few questions for you.....

1. Do houses evolve into houses, or are they built?
2. Do chairs and tables and lamps and computers etc. evolve, or are they built?
3. What about all the other stuff that is man made?

It is a very simple fact that man is the most complex organism on the earth.

4. Who is to say that we are not God made?

Im sorry, but as soon as I see a piece of lumber evolve into a house, i will believe in God.....

Your thinking about this too litterally, of course chairs and houses evolve. Its not as if someone woke up one day and built st. pauls cathedral. To get to that point took thousands of years of starting out with mud huts then moving on to thatched huts etc etc.. each generation learning something new about the process of building enabling complex structures to evolve over time.
This is part of the reason why i think evolution is such a sound theory, its not just life that evolves but concepts, ideas, and art.

Couldnt really tell if you were using your argument to prove or deny god btw so sorry if that didnt make any sense in relation to what you were saying

Razi Abid

May24-04, 07:25 AM

God exists, believe it or not. It isn't the universe which is a God. But mind it that there is a supernatural being which controls the universe and the happenings in it. Ok, can you just tell who created the universe, obviously i'll have an answer that it was coincidently made. Scientist believe that the universe was created by some kind of big bang, if yes then how did the collision happen, and from where did the collided particles came from. All the strange questions lead everyone to reach to the answer that there is a supernatural being who did all this and made it happen. :mad:

Deca-of-CD

May24-04, 08:35 PM

Oh my ****... Someone shoot Razi Abid...

All the strange questions lead everyone to reach to the answer that there is a supernatural being who did all this and made it happen.

....All of the questions do not lead to the answer of some supernatural being, ****tard..

If i felt like typing out that huge *** portion from Hyperspace, I would... But I don't feel like typing it all out, so buy the book and read pages 191 to 214...

Deca-of-CD

May24-04, 08:37 PM

Oh.. and give me Logical proof OF God.. And I'll buy the religion ****...

franznietzsche

May24-04, 09:42 PM

ahem....with all due respect, I can point you to something that holds information with out needing memory....

the universe. it has no memory, but it holds lots and lots of structured meaningful information.

And god or no god, it went through a creation. Not helping your case.

Razi Abid

May25-04, 04:34 AM

Can you just tell who created the universe, obviously i'll have an answer that it was coincidently made. Scientist believe that the universe was created by some kind of big bang, if yes then how did the collision happen, and from where did the collided particles came from?
If anyone gives a logical answer to this question, then i will definitly stop believing in GOD. This will be a hard task for me as I solely believe in ONE GOD.
__________________________________________________ ____________
Make me stop believing in God, i bet no one can.

selfAdjoint

May25-04, 12:54 PM

The Big Bang could have come from branes colliding, or it could have come from a quantum fluctualtion - the "free lunch" proposal, or it could have come about in some other way.

But just because science doesn't have an explicit answer for this doesn't mean you are logically justified in concluding that a personal god made the universe. This is like asking what color is grandpa's house? And if you get the answer "I don't know", saying "Well then it must be pink with purple polka-dots."

franznietzsche

May26-04, 02:06 AM

If anyone gives a logical answer to this question, then i will definitly stop believing in GOD. This will be a hard task for me as I solely believe in ONE GOD.
__________________________________________________ ____________
Make me stop believing in God, i bet no one can.

Your question says tell me who created the universe and then i will stop believing in God.

I can't tell you who created it if there was no being to create it, there is no way to respond to that question and make a convincing case that doesn't agree with you in the same breath so to speak.

Razi Abid

May26-04, 04:34 AM

selfAdjoint

May26-04, 10:19 AM

Razi Abid

May26-04, 12:00 PM

Look, you are talking very illogical. Can you please give me about five reasons to prove that God does'nt exists.

BoulderHead

May26-04, 12:16 PM

Look, you are talking very illogical. Can you please give me about five reasons to prove that God does'nt exists.
How about if you give one good reason to prove why 'he' does ???

[edit]
Oops, sorry I just read the title of this thread. Nevermind responding, Razi Abid.

naveen

May27-04, 02:01 AM

if that is the case, then the universe cannot possible exist since memory must have existed before the universe, except, before the universe is a meaningless term since until the universe formed, there was no before. since there was no before, then memory could not have been in existence to make the universe and as such, the universe could not form. :smile:

We can never get anywhere in the discussions which god or universe is traced back in TIME.you have to know that time is just one of the dimensions like space and other.so when the universe or matter was created so was time,at that very instant.Even space was created and is being continuously being created.thats is why objects in the universe are moving further apart.Its proved experimentally.
Comments Welcome!!

Razi Abid

May27-04, 05:12 AM

look boulder head, if you concentrate on the systamatic way the nature works then you'll be bound to think that this just cannot happen by itself.
CONCENTRATE ON NATURE AND ITS EXISTENCE :smile:

Gelsamel Epsilon

May27-04, 06:25 AM

If any of you had read Dr. Kaku's Carp analogy, you would realise that that can relate to us, like the carp were un-able to fathom up, we can't fathom the existence of a God, or even that fact that he was always there, and never was born and that he created time and there was no time before that, so if there is no time how did things come to pass? and things such as that. Just as if the carp scientist would be deemed crazy to asume such things happen above the water ( yet those things do exist), you deem people who belive in an omni-potent being (or the rain effecting our universe), crazy!. Even though there actually is one.

Our minds can't grasp this concept, just like the carp have no concept of up, we have no concept of God.

God is pulling those strings...

shadowman

May27-04, 07:55 AM

What mistake? To have a mistake you have to have a plan. The alternative view is that there was no plan. You are just so wound up with your theological view that you can't even perceive a non-theological view. But they exist, and in spite of your opinion, they are not nasty.

and you are so wound up with your scientific view that you cant even percieve a non-evolutionistic view. One takes belief, and the other takes hard evidence, that happens to be taken in an extremely unaccurate way that gives extremely unaccurate results (carbon dating), and scientific "guesses" made by men that are in reality scared to admit that there is a God because that makes humankind "inferior".

That is the reason why scientists have not liked the idea of God. It is too complex an idea for the scientific lab. They cant handle the fact that there is something that is inexplicable from the human scientific understanding. What happens when something is unexplicable? Scientists attack it until they discover when, how,and why it works. They can't do this with God so, they are intimidated when confronted with God. I've seen it. They are not quick to dispute it because it is false, no, they are quick to dispute it because they cant scientifically explain it. Therefore, they get defensive.

Gelsamel Epsilon

May27-04, 08:34 AM

One takes belief, and the other takes hard evidence

If your saying there is Hard-evidence for Evolutiont then your wrong, alot of the evidence has been turned up false, even Darwin said at the end of his life that what he wrote was a load of bull. And Comparitive Embryology was rejected by ALL the evolutionists at the time and it was proved wrong!!! Yet you can open a science book and it will still have that in there!!!

The guy who invented the Classing system eg. Phylum and all that ( i can't remember his name) was a christian creationist, yet the evolutionists used it to prove evolution.

Though micro evolution has been proven (which i belive happens) macro evolution hasn't been proved, they got a lizards leg and somthing elses leg and said look they look similar but they have never found the "lizard thingy" which is half way inbetween or even the stages inbetween that!!. We had to do a debate in our school on Evolution Vs Creation and the creationists won you know why? The people looking for prove for Evolutionism couldn't find any, that wasn't already dis-proved by creationism.

shadowman

May27-04, 11:39 AM

If your saying there is Hard-evidence for Evolutiont then your wrong, alot of the evidence has been turned up false.

I know this... thats what I was saying. carbod dating is an inaccurate way to date things, but it is still used, etc. what I was trying to convey in my reply was that modern scientists run from God. The "hard evidence" is wrong. I said hard evidence because that is what they think they have.

europium

May27-04, 02:00 PM

Ok, so we don't have perfect evidence for our many theories of the birth of the universe. But how much hard evidence do you have for the existance of God? None. All you say is oh we have faith, thats all we need, and do you think scientists don't have faith? Sure they do. But their's is at least that the latest theories will prove some things, and not 'we have faith that something is there despite a complete lack of evidence in any shape or form'. Where is your CMB for God? Your Higgs for the 'great one'? The only form of evidence creationists conjure up are from the mishaps of science - where science has made a mistake. You don't use your own evidence, you just twist scientifical evidence to make it sound like you do. You are cynics towards science (the real world) and you have been brainwashed i am afraid. And don't reply saying that scientists have been brainwashed. Because they haven't. Scientists base their assumptions and estimates on true evidence, creationists base theirs on the fact that a holy book told them, and lots and lots and lots of people believe it so it must be true - and now i am going to heaven.

Open your eyes, and take a look at reality - real space, real time, real evidence, Science.

K_

TsunamiJoe

May27-04, 05:27 PM

franznietzsche

May27-04, 06:25 PM

So you all mean to say that the creation of the universe was just a scientific mistake, and that the extra genious civilised beings, who are so called humans, were all born by mistake.Don't you wonder that all the creation wasn't by mistake or coincidence, but was pre-planned by God.
Please don't seek for hell, just establish a firm belief in God. :mad:

Firstly: I don't need to seek for hell, i'm already living there. But my hatred of ym existence is not the issue here.

I would argue humans are not "extra genious" and for the vast majority are not even rational.

No i don't wonder.

A mistake implies that there was some other purpose in mind. Your very diction indicates that you will never be swayed, you cannot form a sentence without showing that you believe in God and the rest of us are wrong. I don't believe my existence is a mistake (birth control jokes aside) because i do not believe that there was any supernatural being to make such a mistake. My existence simply is, it is the result of a long serious of natural, chemical processes. Nothing more, nothing less.

franznietzsche

May27-04, 06:33 PM

actually there are constantly being discoveries made that only the christian bible can explain - i.e. several years back group of archeologists found a set of scrolls - they later found out only way to explain them was that they were the scrolls of the red sea or sommit - which is mentioned in the bible and would explain how they got to where they were found

Finding archeological evidence that Sodom and Gomorrah is a little bit different than finding archeological evidence of God coming down and taking the prohpet away in "a chariot of fire".

Show me that, then i'll be convinced by archeology.

Gelsamel Epsilon

May28-04, 02:52 AM

Its Fairly Obvious noone is going to change anyone's minds here.

Though it one thing has been proven in the bible i think its safe to assume that the rest is true.

Anyway, whats wrong living a morally correct life?

shrumeo

May28-04, 04:49 PM

Look, you are talking very illogical. Can you please give me about five reasons to prove that God does'nt exists.

Jesus Christ!! Jumping Jehova!! I can't believe this "discussion" is happening here. There is obviously no way one can prove or disprove the existence of something outside of nature (supernatural beings like gods and devils) through "logic" or otherwise. So there is no way that you would EVER know whether something like that exists.

I don't know what any of your professions are, but any of you taking one side or another cannot honestly call himself a scientist (or even a rational thinker).

I'm just a poster on this board, but can someone please direct this crap to some other forum?? :mad:

shrumeo

May28-04, 04:50 PM

Its Fairly Obvious noone is going to change anyone's minds here.

Though it one thing has been proven in the bible i think its safe to assume that the rest is true.

Statement ONE: The smartest thing said on this thread.

Statement TWO: The absolute stupidest thing I've seen in this forum.
:mad:

Gelsamel Epsilon

May28-04, 08:44 PM

See what I mean?

europium

May29-04, 12:32 PM

What do you mean, if one thing in the bible is true then the rest is true? so you are also saying then, if this applies to other thoeries, that because we have discovered the proton, then the universe started in a big bang, white holes exist, the higgs boson doesnt need searching for because it definately exists. You have just thrown your own argument out of the window. Well done, another illogical statement from a creationist. Oh well.

K_ :grumpy:

Pet Zepi

May29-04, 03:05 PM

Gelsamel Epsilon

May29-04, 10:34 PM

I actually ment my first statement :-/ I meant "See no-one will change anyones minds"

And i didn't mean it like that. The Big Bang could of been created by God for all you know!. And I am not a creationist. And its not only 1 thing in the bible.

Creation: Most things proven, all attacks by evolutionists repelled, no mistakes made.

Evolution: Most things "proven", then distroyed by other EVOLUTIONISTS! or Creationists. Millions of Mistakes made, yet those mistakes still taught to the youth.

People dont want to belive in Creation becuase its hard to comprehend, hence them beliving evolution. Even though creation still has more proof then Evolution. Society wants to belive that Humans are the most omni-potent "race" or thing, they dont like to think of themself as lower then somthing else.

Even those strata ( i think they r called that) layers in the rock, have been proven to be able to form quickly in a horisontal pattern rather then slowly over millions of years laid down from top to bottom.

Give me some evidence that I cannot refute and I will become a evolutionist.

Des Chamberlain

May30-04, 07:38 AM

God is the purest form of energy from which everything springs, His memory is in the DNA of the living and the 22 quantum particles that form the base of all matter.

Gelsamel Epsilon

May30-04, 09:03 AM

now even i find that ridiculous..

addman

May31-04, 04:47 PM

Creation: Most things proven, all attacks by evolutionists repelled, no mistakes made.

Excuse me but am i missing something? Most things are proven for your view of creation ( i assume you are referring to genesis in the bible?)
:confused:

Janitor

May31-04, 04:56 PM

Even those strata ( i think they r called that) layers in the rock, have been proven to be able to form quickly in a horisontal pattern rather then slowly over millions of years laid down from top to bottom. - Gelsamel

Would you kindly provide a link to a site that tells more about that? And are you saying that all strata were formed quickly, or just that some of them were?

Alem2000

May31-04, 05:30 PM

Hello fellow scientist! There is actuallly proof of the christian bible. First of all the book of jobe where God talks about dinasours..ok thats not really a good one. But in the book of enoch, for those who dont know it predates Jesus by about 6 thousand years....talks about how the universe is structured and how the moon orbits the earth and the earth orbits the sun and other complicated details of the universe. And not to mention that Isac Newton used the bible to help him in his mathmatical and astronomical persutes. And then the book of jobe talks about vents in the deep sea that let out hot gas and lave....and the scientific community found this out when you ask....only in the late 19th century.

Janitor

May31-04, 05:39 PM

Alem2000, I am not familiar with Enoch. If it predates Jesus by 6,000 years, that would make it, at 8,000 years, far older than any other document we have, wouldn't it? I find that implausible. Do you have some supporting references you can give us?

Alem2000

May31-04, 06:44 PM

Just for those who dont know Enoch was the 7th son of Adam. Okay here is the link to the 3rd part of the book of enoch which talks about the sun and earth and stars. Try to keep in mind that at that time even knowing that the earth is a sphere is a discovery itself. If you read carefully past the coded words you can see that it talks about ligh as a wave, and orbits of the moon. Let me know what you think. http://www.piney.com/Apoc3Astronomy.html By the way this book was ruled out of the bible for some theological reason.

selfAdjoint

May31-04, 06:54 PM

So all the sun comes up in the east of the world and travels across the sky to the west of the world, that's just "coded words" and light as a wave, that's some phrase with your own secret interpretation. Frankly my dear, it isn't worth a damn.

And the Book of Enoch isn't in the Bible because it wasn't written by Enoch but by a heretical sect of Judaism in the first century - i.e after the destruction of the temple.

Alem2000

May31-04, 07:14 PM

"through which the rays of the sun break forth: and from them is warmth" enoch 3 chapter 75:4. Okay how about that? And by the way it wasnt written by a heretical jewish sect after the destruction of the temply because after it was lost it was found in ethiopia and was said to have been there early before King Solomon and his temple. And you didnt think of the fact that the first language it was written in was ethiopic and enoch was an east african. And next time please read the whole thing not just the first paragraph before you start to "damn" it. And what about the orbits?

Alem2000

May31-04, 07:33 PM

I think we are straying from the point of these threds. I dont have a specific standing on the scripture or have a good understand of its coded language. And if you ask what i mean by that..i think it is very obvious that the bible is coded and allmost allways has (2nd 3rd....ect) meaning that theologins know..ie we are not theologins.

So ill stop talking and let the scientists speak.
Astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle:

"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

Theoretical physicist Albert Einstein:

"The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation... His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."

Theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking:

"The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."

Astronomer Robert Jastrow:

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

Physicist James Trefil:

"...The evidence we have at present clearly favors the conclusion that we are alone. From the formation of the sun as a single G star to the evolution of the earth's atmosphere to the conditions of the earth's recent climate, everything points to the same conclusion -- we are special.

"But we are living on an insignificant speck of rock going around an undistinguished star in a low-rent section of the galaxy. We are not the center of the universe.

"Maybe so, but we are special.

...If I were a religious man, I would say that everything we have learned about life in the past twenty years shows that we are unique, and therefore special in God's sight. Instead I shall say that what we have learned shows that it matters a great deal what happens to us."

Mike2

May31-04, 09:08 PM

Why do we not consider that God is the Logic that created and sustains all things? Then both Theologians and Scientist are both doing the same thing, trying to understand Him better.

shadowman

Jun1-04, 08:43 AM

Why do we not consider that God is the Logic that created and sustains all things? Then both Theologians and Scientist are both doing the same thing, trying to understand Him better.

I agree very much, Mike... :eek: CANT WE ALL JUST GET ALONG?!?!?!?!?! :eek:

shrumeo

Jun1-04, 08:28 PM

shadowman

Jun2-04, 01:49 AM

(hey folks, since i keep getting emails and i keep reading this insane thread I'll throw in another 2 cents)

Why do we have to understand "HIM" ? Who the +%@# is "HE"?

What is so hard about just shrugging, saying "I dunno", and leaving it at that? DO you HAVE to believe one way or the other? Must everything be proven or disproven to be true or untrue? Just accept that you will never know and deal with it. Is it so hard?

I think we all actually WILL start to get along once this happens.

so are you telling me that you are willing to straddle the fence and be just fat, dumb and happy about the whole thing? All of science from the atheist or creationist point of view is about finding more answers. You cant just be complacent. Do you realize that if everyone had your way of thinking, we might still be thinking the world is flat? Continents would not have been discovered by the "modern" world. We would still think that atoms are little tiny balls that are the smallest single unit in the universe. We would have definatly never entered space or landed on the moon. So even though there is a battle so to speak going on, it is necessary for progress. for if you never stand for something, then you'll fall for anything.

selfAdjoint

Jun2-04, 09:13 AM

hazakate

Jun3-04, 02:58 AM

truthfully does it matter if there is really a god. it is a way for the non fufilled to exist and if they need it to exist where is it are place to tell them it is not true. everyone has there belifes it is all your choice not others. i was place in a anglican school where belife is pushed on you. it is your right to belive as you wish

hazakate

Jun3-04, 03:10 AM

such hate in such a small area this is what happened in iraq

Mike2

Jun3-04, 10:20 AM

If you stick with scientific investigation - the real thing - then you come up with no proof of God's existance and no proof of his non-existance. So there's no scientific reason to say yea or nay. Beyond that there are the human religions and churches. Many scientists have a very low opinion of them.
If God is the Logic that maintains consistency between facts and thus determines all things, then His existence is the starting premise of anyone who thinks. How hypocritical for someone who claims to think straight to deny God. That's like denying that logic is relevant to any conversation. Such people disqualify themselves from debate.

sol2

Jun3-04, 10:25 AM

If God is the Logic that maintains consistency between facts and thus determines all things, then His existence is the starting premise of anyone who thinks. How hypocritical for someone who claims to think straight to deny God. That's like denying that logic is relevant to any conversation. Such people disqualify themselves from debate.

There are many sicentific minded people who believe in God. They understand the requirements of science in the debate. Yet they still believe.

Should such people disqualify themselves from the current project they are working on? The ultimate adherence to the scientific world would be the home of the atheist, because of the requirement of its supporting factual needs.

You had mentioned a falsifiable assumption as a starting point to the big bang?

Some do not need this, they just change the way they look at things:)

Is this not logical?

shadowman

Jun3-04, 10:46 AM

this is what happened in iraq

Listen, you can be against God or for God...that is your business. But DON'T you go somewhere you dont need to go. What on earth do you know about Iraq??? ABSOLUTLY NOTHING !!!!!!!! The things you know are only what you hear from the misinformed too-liberal-for-their-own-good media. You have absolutly NO idea what is really going on in Iraq. I just got back from there. We are not the cause of Iraqi suffering. What causes problems is when you give children care packages with food and other things to take back to their families, and then their parents shooting and killing the children because they interacted with american soldiers. They are a poor hurting people because of the regime they just came from. Most Iraqi people desire us to be there, but it is the ones like i mentioned above that make the media. All you hear is about the bombers and the extremists that dont want us there. You do not hear about the lives we save, and the thousands upon thousands of people we help. So unless you have been there and experienced it for yourself, SHUT UP. unless you have friends killed by people they are trying to help, SHUT UP. you know what, just shut up anyway.

Deca-of-CD

Jun3-04, 11:18 AM

*skims through all of the posts*

"Anyway, whats wrong living a morally correct life?"

Forgot who said that^ ..... But you are implying that people who do not believe in your 'almighty' God are living immorally?.. And besides, I know many Christians who do not live morally correct lives, yet they insist on forcefeeding me their bull****..

And why is it that 90% of Christians do the same things when confronted with proof of the existence of their God? They either: attack in numbers (which this thread is a good example of.. though, there happens to be many non-religious people joining in the fray to combat the religious.. so meh), change the subject, avoid the question, or block/ban/ignore you..

TsunamiJoe

Jun3-04, 10:05 PM

first of all i believe tell peolpe to "shut up" and putting others down in this forum is prohibited

secondly if you think hard about morality, morality is based upon religion why? because very long ago when religions were formed they were told or instructed by a vision, prophet, or what-not that such things are wrong. But in todays available free thinking society people will say no i dont believe in religion and tell you somethings wrong without having non-theological proof to support it.

another thing is. Is that if we were to have just stopped the persuit of knowlage which is what shrumeo is saying to do. Thus meaning we should have just stopped bothering trying to develope usable electricity. To hell with the automobile and radio and lightbulb! Why in earth should we have went through the pursuit of developing the wheel, I mean come on what has it done for us? (sarcasm there my friends in case noone noticed)

also thank you for the responce to my post but what you said was completely illogical for soddom and Gomorrah are actually scientifically said to have a high chance of actually being not actual cities but symbols of degradation of society. Also do you know what the red sea scrolls actually are? they themselves for many ought to proove gods existance indefinintly. Though due to sketchy translations the english version of them isnt terribly usefull to most unless you know its origanal language. secondly it will be literally impossible to detect traces of a flaming chariot due-to-the-fact that it wasnt an actual flaming chariot but a mere "metephysical" symbolism of such. If one would understand the bible to a great extent one would discover it is primarily alot of symbolism, for the what i will call "primitive" culture they used what best they could to discribe the "extravagant" acts of god.

Moonrat

Jun4-04, 12:39 AM

No. God does not need memory. Would you also suggest that to have a personality God needs a brain?

Hope no one minds if I jump in here, but there are a few mistakes made in the 'logic' that there is no God. First and foremost, I want to prefrence that God is mystery, and therefore I do not have any proof of the existance of God either, but I do have proof of the existance of mystery, which, if there is a god, she may be hiding behind that!

Now, first error in the logic is defining what attributes God must have to exist. Now, this is not objective logic but rather subjective reasoning, but even if it was objective, that still would not mean there is no proof of God, because therefore even if God had such human attributes, in an infinite universe or an infinite system, human or human like intelligence may then be the creative component and organising princaple of the universe itself.

The reasoning of intelligence is an important factor, indeed, in an infinite system, let's say humanity exists in rather large quantity, but is spread out in infinite directions and participates in creation (just like we are beginning to now in our evolution) Intelligence perhaps is this 'eternal' component that forms in life and evolves in something human like and then spreads itself out and onward (which would mean that WE are the 'memory' and biological factors of 'god')

now, THIS is a logical representation of what God 'could' be, and it fits rational thought, however, GOd is STILL mystery, and any represenation of mystery is FALSE until one has OBJECTIVE proof for all to see or come to similar conclusions......

I mean, dark matter is at the perfect and precise proportion in our universe for galaxies to form. Any less, and no galaxies, i.e no planets, i.e. no life. We dont know what the hell dark matter is, we are swimming in this sea of mystery and it is not logical to assume we have a proper definition of a source of creation based on our 'myths'...

No?

Moonrat

selfAdjoint

Jun4-04, 10:11 AM

Several thoughts on your post, Moonrat -

The attributes ascribed to God in the alleged proof are those Christians ascribe to him, omnipotence, omniscience, etc. It's an old saying that these two attributes, plus the existence of evil in the world, generate a tension with the goodness of God. It's no answer to say God is a mystery; if he didn't want us to reason about him why did he give us reason in the first place?

Second it is true that some physicists are trying to use an "Anthropic" explanation for the fine tuning problem, but others are looking more to an evolution of universes to explain it. Science as a whole doesn't give ny evidence for God.

Moonrat

Jun4-04, 01:39 PM

Several thoughts on your post, Moonrat -

The attributes ascribed to God in the alleged proof are those Christians ascribe to him, omnipotence, omniscience, etc.

well, they arent just Christian, they are jewish and Muslim, and American Indian, and many others. I do think that christians do tend to put the most human face on God, that is true.

omnipotentence is in all directions. Mystery too is omnidirectional and is in all directions.

It's an old saying that these two attributes, plus the existence of evil in the world, generate a tension with the goodness of God. It's no answer to say God is a mystery; if he didn't want us to reason about him why did he give us reason in the first place?

.

well, it is an honest and objective answer to say that God is Mystery, any reasoning about God without objective proof can only be belief or art. Even in the western religions God is often referred to as the 'great mystery'

it is not that we should not reason about God, it is that we 'cannot' reason about that which we do not know. we can come up with all kinds of things about what lay beyond the great mystery, but all of these ideas are just personal and subjective, which is wonderful for art, but bad for science.

To say 'God is Mystery' is the most reason we can apply to the scenario. the mind can find harmony with mystery and feel it's presence, but when it denies it is mystery, then it is participating in a false universe and not an objective one.

Second it is true that some physicists are trying to use an "Anthropic" explanation for the fine tuning problem, but others are looking more to an evolution of universes to explain it. Science as a whole doesn't give ny evidence for God

I personally think the best evidence we have for a 'higher intelligence' is DNA. I mean, DNA terraformed this whole planet from a poisonoues firey hell to what we have today.

My suggestion, which is not an original idea on my part, is that 'DNA' may be a universal constant, i.e. the intelligence that spreads and spreads....

how long before humanity can create galaxies? 1000 years? we can already create a black hole!

I dont think it is the place of science to provide proof of God, really, I dont think it can. I think it is both ART and SCIENCE which must work together on this. science cannot understand ART, and that is the clincher!

thank you for the great discussion

n0n

Jun4-04, 03:22 PM

Ok, here's the delio people, god exists and god does not exist. symbolically god is all of existance, litterally god is the ablity to over power something, and we do that in every moment just by our selfs. The laws of physics are god they will not bend for any being, and I'm absolutely sure that Christ wasn't an exception (what kind of defiance would actually walking on water mean? I do not think that Christ would defy his belief of god as the fabric of understanding(logic).). See even with or without a god 2 consepts wall eachother in, something & nothing. If god is everything then nothing cannot exist except as everything (which isnt entirely wrong). But if god is nothing then what we see becomes a separation and reduction of something, were one infinite gives rise and the sheading to nothing continues. We then become with or against something, and that is were choice is made, yes or no and thier is no maybe, for maybe is the blade that kills, maybe is to the sum of nothing + & -. and so the answer in my opinnion is yes thier is a god, and no thier is not a god. and both are to thier fullest extents of the meanings. And progression progresses.

Janitor

Jun4-04, 10:56 PM

we can already create a black hole!- Moonrat

I would love to hear more about that. I would have said that human technology was not even close to being able to do that.

I haven't read every single post in this thread. Has anybody pointed out that a human who hears a literal Voice Of God in her head can be 100 percent sure of the existence of God?

Those around her may make the claim that she is schizophrenic or whatever, but if she herself is unaware of any brain malfunctions that she may be having, she will surely feel justified in her certainty of God's existence.

Years ago I heard a radio preacher recount his experience of conversing with a certain Christian woman. He says that in the middle of conversation she interrupted herself, gazed upward, and said, "What Lord? Oh yes, I will do that. Thank you Lord."

Another radio preacher--if I recall his name was something like Andrew Wommack--told of being in a church service that was taking place concurrently with a World Series baseball game. The preacher in that service told the audience that God had just revealed to him that so-and-so had just hit a three-run home run in the bottom of the sixth and that it made the score such-and-such. The radio preacher said that after the service, when he got a chance to read about the game in the newspaper, that very thing had indeed happened.

Deca-of-CD

Jun6-04, 02:42 PM

Janitor:

Ever heard of small, hand-held portable radios with little ear bud headphones? ........

And technology is not up to par to create a black hole, moonrat...not even close..

Janitor

Jun6-04, 02:48 PM

Ever heard of small, hand-held portable radios with little ear bud headphones? ........- Deca-of-CD

Yes indeed! There was a televangelist named Peter Popoff who got caught doing something like that. He would have his ushers pass out questionnaire forms before the service. Visitors would fill them out and hand them back. During the service, Popoff would get the information sent to him by his wife, who had a radio transmitter with her in another room of the church. It was all very impressive, until a skeptic figured out how it probably worked, and then used a scanner to find the right frequency and made a recording of the wife. I remember one of the things he taped her saying was, "If you can't hear me, you're in big trouble..."

Deca-of-CD

Jun6-04, 03:18 PM

Exactly. Therefore, religion is bah...

I mean..that's like me saying "God has just told me that........the news is on channel 5 right now" at Noon, when indeed there is a 30 minute news broadcast o.O

TsunamiJoe

Jun6-04, 08:04 PM

well technically noone actually hears god, god doesnt have a voice. If the person isnt mentally ill and actually does here a voice it is of a certain angel (whose name escapes me right now) that is saying it. His name might be micheal?? But his offical title is the "Voice of God"

Janitor

Jun6-04, 09:10 PM

technically noone actually hears god, god doesnt have a voice. If the person isnt mentally ill and actually does here a voice it is of a certain angel... -TsunamiJoe

Maybe you can find Biblical support for that position. There were a few in the Protestant Church I went to as a kid who told matter-of-factly about how God instructed them to do this or that specific thing. They never said, "An angel told me..." It was always, "The Lord told me..." or "God told me..." And preachers started many a sermon with the words, "The Lord laid it on my heart this week to speak on the topic of..." In general, I have noticed that as compared to Catholics, Protestants downplay angels, saints, and Mary, but maybe refer more to Satan.

Janitor

Jun7-04, 01:05 AM

Five minutes ago Trinity Broadcasting TV ran a clip of Matt Crouch--I believe he is the son of the hosts Paul and Jan Crouch--saying, "The Lord told me, in my car, 'I will choose anyone, at any time, to...' " That is an exact quote. So there are people out there who believe, or at least talk as though they believe, that God speaks directly to them with an audible voice in their head.

TsunamiJoe

Jun7-04, 01:23 PM

ok well

gabriel - messanger of god
angel of death - angel who comes to you when you die (obviously)

Gelsamel Epsilon

Jun8-04, 12:07 AM

Ok, here's the delio people, god exists and god does not exist.

Whoa superposition on a macro-scopic level? You've just successfully combined
Quantum mechanics with General Relativity. :p
(( that was an old post, i know :-/ ))

Janitor

Jun8-04, 12:16 AM

So maybe they are mistaking Gabriel's voice for the Lord's voice. :uhh:

What then is Michael famous for?

n0n

Jun8-04, 01:04 AM

Why should anything exist any more then it does not exist? This is the combined philosophical study of life to the existing of life. Is their a universalness of it? God is a philosophical question, because and only because, if god is complete understanding then god is logic, so then we ask why does logic exist? and science turns to philosophy and asks "why do we understand?", and philosophy responds with "to be or not to be?".

QMGR cannot be defined as simply as a void concept (can it even define void period?), because QMGR isn't based within nothing but around that which observably exists, and hence why god exists and god does not exist "could define QMGR in a very very basic way". :confused: :approve:

Gelsamel Epsilon

Jun8-04, 02:16 AM

Ooooooookkkaaaaaaaaaaaaay.....anyway, its either a yes or no, God either exists or doesn't and if your talking about QM then those who belive obviously have a reason, Eg. the superposition of waves has collapsed in their live and they KNOW that God is real. Note also: I am talking about God, not god.

TsunamiJoe

Jun8-04, 02:45 AM

ok redo this -

michael=messanger
gabriel=destructor (he destroyed an entire invading force furing the night while joshua and his army was asleep in the city)

michael pronounced jesus' aparent birth witht he angels, he talked to zacharius, virtually anything you hear that is actually from god, is michael

Janitor

Jun8-04, 03:43 AM

Thanks for clarifying, Tsunami.

I remember back in the 1980s that Rev. Oral Roberts, a famous faith healer, spoke to a 900-foot-tall Jesus who informed Brother Roberts that he would be "called home" to Heaven if he failed to raise sufficient money for his medical center in Tulsa. No mention of Michael was made. :smile:

n0n

Jun8-04, 10:22 AM

Ha, right. I see, we who think of physical existence are crazy. And yet we who think of physical existence think, we who think God exists are crazy. This is called duality and hence god exists and does not exist. Don't overlook the obviousness of existence. The ideology of god,which is a good one, is not all correct and again why god exists and does not exist. people being talked to by a rock is a little much but whatever, not all beings are stable nor are they expected to be (proof). funny I remember a case were some mother killed 2 of here children and beaten one close to death all cause she honestly thought god told her to do so, and that was like about 3 months ago maybe less. note: she was classified insane. and gelsamel epsilon explain god in zero, then tell me it's either yes or no, and not both. God is an easy escape(exactly the opposite of what religion tell's people), if you cannot forgive your own sins(are you able to ask for forgiveness from the person you did wrong to, and not just ask oh god forgive me form stealing their "VCR" for crack, I'm so bad. then do it a day later) then uh, your going to feel guilty(na, they just wouldn't care(proof of a positive from religion)), if you are not happy with your life and you don't want to change it then uh, your not going to be happy any time soon. that is both god and false hope, and that is exist and not exist. was Shakespeare wrong to say "to be or not to be", god/Christ/religion couldn't even come up with anything as genius as that. now you might have some guy who can relate stories to it but who gives a ____ , you can relate anything to anything else. pray to your idols for they are the god(worship it, pray to it, give it money, only it can save you, only it can heal you) you put before god(true existence, physical existence, imaginative existence,philosophy, science). that is the difference between sane and insane were do you stand? that is the difference from one who will accent into a heaven if it exists, and one who will go to hell because they do not understand the ways of God, Which teaches and so we must learn and that is what we do, not ask for affirmations of how great gods power is, but to just seek existence as its affirmation of power and we must learn it to be closer to God, that is the genius of God, not the ploy of marketing it. And thats why you don't ever see billboards of scientific proof, but billboards with words of "God", ie."god loves you". because its a brain washer with good morals and a marketing strategy to keep you as their lap dogs. And this is the only way to deal with dualities and explaining both halves of such ideals. Yes and no, for that is the only way a choice can be made we must have the option of either to exist.

shrumeo

Jun8-04, 08:13 PM

wow, i have seen some pointless discussions in this forum
but this one wins for highest BS ratio
that is (the number of words)/(actually saying anything)

shrumeo

Jun8-04, 08:15 PM

Oh, yeah

remember M.C. 900-foot Jesus ???
good videos at least

Janitor

Jun8-04, 09:34 PM

I guess I missed the video. :redface:

Mark

Jun8-04, 11:06 PM

Trying to say that God doesn't exist, is like trying to say that physics doesn't exist, it is an argument that you can never win, no matter how many people help. Please put your minds to more productive matters that trying trying to prove that which no humans can prove.

Janitor

Jun9-04, 01:53 AM

This website link will give an inkling of why I find Trinity Broadcasting TV so addictive:

http://www.myfortress.org/FALSETEACHERS.html

:approve:

n0n

Jun9-04, 09:16 AM

Guess what, of course it was a point less post look at what were talking about. god is a pointless question & answer. Its the exact same as: if all = god then all = all and that cannot explain anything but all; if all = car then all cannot explain anything but all, and does not explain the physics of a car (combustion ratios, timing of crank shaft to cam heads to pistons to alternator to battery to solenoid to distributor cap to blah blah blah . just a generalized version of car becomes all. And its as simple as that, we as humans have to overcome or lack of fore site, and god does not allow that. hence again why god exist and god doesn't exist, because it is a concept, it might not be a conscious concept, but its a truthful and unfulfilling concept. btw, I seen some one parachute off the 900 ft Jesus. I wonder if science will ever over power such an idol?

PS. shrumeo, at least it made sense word for word which is more then i can say for half the people writing anything in any forum, just blearting out some random answer of "yes its this" or "no its that" , with no reasons why, that is not a discussion but an infringement or a industrialized commercial. And if the complexity of a god can be contained within 3 words tell me what do we gain that we haven't already known the options for, for the past 10,000 years?

Janitor

Jun9-04, 09:58 PM

I seen some one parachute off the 900 ft Jesus. - n0n

Could that have been the big statue near Rio de Janiero? I don't know that it is 900 feet tall in and of itself, but it is on top of a needle-like rock as I recall from seeing pictures.

TsunamiJoe

Jun9-04, 11:11 PM

n0n wow i got less then half way through your post and stopped reading....you need to section your stuff up so that people know when you change points....if it even had a point in it...

Gelsamel Epsilon

Jun11-04, 09:29 AM

Non, your an Agnostic, and Agnostics are people who "don't know" so you can just shut up! xD

This should have ended ages ago, when I said that noone was going to change anyones minds.

selfAdjoint

Jun11-04, 11:54 AM

If you think the thread should end, the best thing you can do is not post on it. A thread does not have to have a winner or loser to be an enjoyable and enlightenining conversation.

TsunamiJoe

Jun11-04, 10:11 PM

this really isnt about whos right or wrong, its just about trying to come to a mutual ending on what could be the possible answer

TENYEARS

Jun13-04, 10:57 AM

If any of you were really interested in answers you would have them. If you do not and you debate, you are obviously not interested enough to find the truth. This is all that it is. This is all that it ever was. This is the quiet secret you keep to your self. The one you do not speak of, but you know it deep down. To find the truth requires to ask the question to unlock that which you already know.

TsunamiJoe

Jun13-04, 10:44 PM

ok tenyears since all of us are SOO stupid, how about you tell us O enlightened one

Deca-of-CD

Jun14-04, 12:55 AM

An agnostic is not a person who "doesn't know".. It simply is a person who doesn't believe anything unless said person can see proof of it..

. . .. bwahaha..

I have several ideas (really? ... damn) on this...

1- God exists and he/she is laughing his/her *** off at anyone who is searching for a GUT/TOE that does not exist..

2- God exists, but he/she also created an equation so that people can waste thousands of years trying to find a GUT/TOE....all so he/she can laugh his/her *** off at us..

3- There is no God, and we won't figure out a GUT/TOE for another few hundred years..

4- It doesn't matter.. we are all going to die in a flaming nuclear holocaust in 7 years, 4 days, 2 hours, 37 minutes, and 51 seconds..

Of course, those are just the random things I could think of at this moment -_- Give me 20 minutes, and I can write a book full of different solutions @_@

selfAdjoint

Jun14-04, 09:01 AM

Then of course there's Shakespeare's image of god as a mean little boy pulling the wings off flies (i.e. us).

TENYEARS

Jun15-04, 09:13 PM

TsunamiJoe, stupid is something that does not exist, it is given a name for the appearance of defined action in defined circumstances and yet it has no reality. Stupid does not exist, this is the reality.

n0n

Jun17-04, 12:47 AM

agreed TENYEARS, stupidity is an illogical, a connecting of false points made by our inability to understand(or accept) what we are, like you said in #152. funny, this is the very idea behind Generations of learned traditions. but humanity is not stupid in any sense of the word, no matter how illogical we can be, we are still always trying to figure things out, no matter how simple or complex. we can be stupid for little individual moments, but that is the un-order or true chaos of existence.

Allah

Jun17-04, 12:20 PM

Squeeze is missing the argument.

I think that we will all agree that God is a perfect being, i.e. he does not need or want anything.

Therefore, WHY WOULD A GOD CREATE A UNIVERSE?

TENYEARS

Jun17-04, 09:43 PM

Non, I have a key to a door, you may have it if you can understand this statement. Humans are never stupid, stupidity does not exist. How? Why? In the same sence, has any human in the history of the world ever been illogical?

Alem2000

Jun17-04, 11:14 PM

Are you guys physicists or loosers? Why would God creat a universe....ill tell you thats far from physics...if you want an answer go to seminary or a theology school...physics CAN NOT ANSWER THAT QUESTION. So what I am saying is

A PRIEST CAN NOT TELL YOU ABOUT ELECTROMAGNATISM...A PHYSICIST CAN NOT TELL YOU ABOUT GOD!!

Allah

Jun18-04, 03:12 AM

Of course a priest can if he has a minor in physics and if physics removes the need for a creator then there might as well not be one.

Alem2000

Jun18-04, 07:43 AM

Well to be down to earth #1 there arnt really even that many of us physics majors(relativlely speaking) #2 There arent really any priests that minor in physics(relatively speaking :rofl: ). And on the other note, its not physics place to remove the need for a creator. I mean come on! Lets get serious, what does physics do...in a nutshell....look at phenomina and give it a math equation that seems to model it in the best way(being synicall). Physics is not and humans are not sophysicated enough to rule out the posability of a creator. The chances of the just eveolving...thats a stupid idea..there has to be a creator. I mean what are the chances of life just appering....there is an axiom I learned in biology.."life comes from life"..it doesnt just upack its bags one day and say hello im life. What do you think Allah.

Allah

Jun18-04, 12:34 PM

If everything can be described mathematically, then what place would a God have?

Life is thought to exist on Venus
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviation/article/0,12543,406876,00.html

We cannot know the chances of life appearing, since we only have one planet to examine. The current theory of how life came to be is either organic material from a comet "life from life" or spontaneous generation. Spontaneous generation is when pure sitting water generates proteins, amino acids and other stuff. I think this has been done in a lab.

I agree with you, Physics and humans are still in there infancy. Today, no we could not totally eliminate God, which proposes an even bigger question. Do we want to?

TENYEARS

Jun19-04, 06:41 PM

There is a god and there is perfect physics. One cannot exist without the other. When you understand, you will understand why.

n0n

Jun20-04, 05:10 PM

Alem2000, where is god if the universe is a fractal. lookup fractals and galaxies, what is physics within such a thing, but a synthesizer creating a sound (or just something that does something because we deside what something is or something desides what something is).

That is our created existance, why would thier be some kind of lame short cut as, "do you accept god?" if you do not know what god is then what are you accepting, you can say "all" but do you know what that means, do you put your very being trying to undersand everything in every way from all 5 senses of you, to every other person within your vision, what they think, what you think, the warmth of the sun on your face but try and imagine the warmth others are feeling. Even if people are haveing a bad day try and imagine it. I try, I know its not even close to right and I dont base my desisions on such a thing, but I wont stop untill I do understand and I have had some cool moments of vision.

Even not within your field of vision, things exist to the right and left of you, you cannot see them but whatevers thier is thier; above you, below you, and behind you. But this doesnt just extend to our feet or the sky or the computer monitor right in front of me, or the kitchen to my back, but through the carpet, the wood floor, the basement, the cement, the random collection of rocks, dusts, and sediment, till liquid rock like less then 25 miles below and above 270.48 miles above, and doesnt by far stop thier, but i do hehe.

point is if you cannot except what random is, you cannot except what random does. random, thier is a consept that needs to be discussed, what is god if such a word exists, but random its "godly" self, just like we humans are.

Tenyears I think that answered it yea?

everything is pretty orderly, but no, everyone is crazy everywere and why not. Just being drives every human into insanity, we just learn to accept and limit ourselfs in some way that's the something you, I see it in my brothers 6 month old boy, and he's still just the cutest thing, thats the gray area that is. what?

TENYEARS

Jun20-04, 08:48 PM

Madness is a human attribute. There are different levels, but it is exists the same in all people. For those that do not understand, they are locked in a bowl that has no sides, the more one understands the further one goes. The extension is not only understanding, but a becoming of what we really are, and that is quite unbelieveable at first and then normalizes itself into a way. The the level gets bumped up and you say wow again and then it is just life. When I speak of visions or other things now, it is just part of life and that is all. Like the sun shining or the wind blowing.

Deca-of-CD

Jun23-04, 08:12 AM

"Physics is not and humans are not sophysicated enough to rule out the posability of a creator. The chances of the just eveolving...thats a stupid idea..there has to be a creator. I mean what are the chances of life just appering....there is an axiom I learned in biology.."life comes from life"..it doesnt just upack its bags one day and say hello im life. What do you think Allah."

-that Alem guy....

Funny thing, I just saw a program about Life... It isn't just about the chances of just evolving O_O .. Micro something anothers (meh, sleep deprivation -- and it isn't microorganisms, so meh on whoever just had that thought..) were present 3.9 billion years ago and stuff from ... stuff O_O ... And all this other stuff I can't really remember right now... and... .... You know what, give me 15 hours of sleep and I'll try to remember exactly what was said in the program..... plus I don't know how to word the things I do remember.. It was, "The Planets" on The Science Channel.. Sooooo....yeah..

Yeah yeah, I know it says "What do you think Allah"... But meh...

patricksamples

Jun24-04, 04:57 AM

for all those god-lovers:
could god make a stone so heavy that he, himself, could not lift it?
huh?
anyone?

bola

Jun24-04, 06:24 AM

I think that for a god to exist, he would have to be outside the system.
He would not be made by sub atomic particles, he would be completely outside the universe and all its laws.

He would have his own system for controlling the things inside, but he would not be a true god if he was made by particles, cause then he would be a slave to those particles.

I didn't read the whole thread, but I will say that the topic starter assumes that god is somehow part of the universe, that he's made up of particles.
If he was then your post would be correct.

And also, if god wasn't part of the system, he could create a stone so large noone could lift it, but since he's not part of the system to begin with, he COULDNT be held account for if he could lift it. The logic "can god create a stone so heavy not even he can lift it" only works if god himself was made of particles, but when he is not, we dont know his ways for controlling the particles inside the universe, and as such it doesn't matter.

All in all, I hardly doubt a god exists, there may be a creator outside our universe, but I don't think he controls anything here, I think the universe is self contained and needs no outer control.

RAD4921

Jun24-04, 11:57 AM

The universe has glass sides with air holes poked into the top.

selfAdjoint

Jun24-04, 12:18 PM

The universe has glass sides with air holes poked into the top.

And food gets sprinkled down into it every morning?

TsunamiJoe

Jun24-04, 09:14 PM

or meybee god created physics so that he would not have to control every precise peice of the multiverse at once untill an anomoly presented itself

like the computer your using, i doubt that your running dos to veiw this website, and the majority are probobly using windows or mac, you click a button and a menu pops up, someone coded that event so that you wouldnt have to manually enter out a directory string

TENYEARS

Jun26-04, 11:37 PM

You all know the answers but you have not acknowleged them. Why? The answers are part of you. You know you only kid yourselves because you are to busy doing what? The truth is here the truth is now the truth is beneath your feet.

franznietzsche

Jun26-04, 11:45 PM

And food gets sprinkled down into it every morning?

DUH! Otherwise we'd starve.

TsunamiJoe

Jun27-04, 10:28 PM

i say we poll to get tenyears to stop making pointless posts...

DUH! Otherwise we'd starve.

lol why cant we grow our own food?

Deca-of-CD

Jun27-04, 10:38 PM

Perhaps his most elegant and explicit statement about religion was written in 1929: "I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. it does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but vecause he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and body as one, not two separate things."

Einstein would often make a distinction vetween two types of Gods, which are often confused in discussions about religion. First, there is the personal God, the God that answers prayers, parts the waters, and performs miracles. This is the God of the Bible, the God of intervention. Then there is the God that Einstein believed in, the God of Spinoza, the God that created the simple and elegant laws othat govern the universe.

-Einstein's Cosmos, Dr. Michio Kaku, p. 129

TENYEARS

Jun28-04, 08:52 PM

That would be an interesting poll which would show much which is already obvious to me, would it be obvious to you? I like it best when the band wagon goes against the flow, it shows the obvious. That is why you put your worst foot forword, only those that that are hungry will consume the crumbs. Not an ego response only the truth, would you know the difference?

Deca-of-CD

Jun28-04, 09:50 PM

Now you're just trying to get more posts...

TsunamiJoe

Jun28-04, 10:03 PM

honestly mate cant you find another area to blather your false pretext? your not contributing at all to the topic at hand.

but yes mate, deca, your considerably right. Or should i say Einstein was considerably right. ha either way nice presentation

holly

Jun28-04, 10:17 PM

My physics professor of last semester said he never discusses religion in class because physics is not the province of that subject. He discusses physics. Every single PhD physicist I know is a believer, specifically, Christians, except for two who are Muslims. They do not mingle the two things, and work on solving physics problems, of which there are evidently more than enough to keep them all busy in their own field and out of the field of theology. They express confusion that people try to mix the two, as if physicists are final arbiters of What Is.

imonly12but im smart

Jun28-04, 10:29 PM

No offense to anyone who is deeply religous but religon is what restrains man from the peaceful ideals of science one such case is so impervious to outside beliefs that they teach their own children to hate anyone who doesnt believe in something that does not exsist. (ala, christ, god, moses/middle east/ NAZIs(booo))

Deca-of-CD

Jun29-04, 01:22 AM

What does Moses, the Middle East, and Nazis have in common? o.O

And I was in church a few weeks ago (Note: forced to go O_O damnit..) and the dude was ranting about other religions being wrong, and that their followers are going to quote, "burn in HELLLL!!!!", ending in a high pitch rush of anger that is common for Baptist preachers.. I was sitting there, already bored and unwaivered, and thought "Holy ****ing ****.. This guy is such a bigot, he doesn't even know anything about the other religions..." .. meh, my point is.. Too many people make up their mind BEFORE they hear the argument.. Just like liberals and conservatives--those ****ing pricks.. Which is kind of the case through out this whole thread.. And don't call me a hypocrite saying "Well, you seem to have made up your mind before you heard the blahblah" .. .Actually, I have enough religious (mainly Christian) friends whom have attempted, numerous and unsuccessful I might add, to 'convert me to Christianity'.. So I've pretty much heard all I'll ever want to hear about Christianity..

TsunamiJoe

Jun29-04, 10:25 PM

*sigh* nazism wasnt a religion and you sound like everyone else on the planet who doesnt actually know what nazism truely was - even i dont, but ive vaguely got it down to purification, which is everyones goal...i mean your greatest nazi example didnt do a great job with it...but noone pays attention to that...also:

moses?? christ and god are all in the same religion base....

and the middle east??

i think you need to turn cnn abc nbc cbs OFF and realise the media has gone to the crapper and doesnt actually show reality

n0n

Jun29-04, 10:55 PM

truely the best belief is belive what you want. for it ensures survival within your being of 'understand', what really confuses me is why is understanding looked at as bad. like, its good in this area but if you understand this, no that wont work, example: good to understand god, bad to understand science (note: to me science is great). What does it mean to understand god, and whats the differance in understanding science. both look for absolute trueth, both blerr beyond all comprehension in explaining what is the true universe at hand.

Entropy

Jul5-04, 01:10 AM

Funny if you actually read the Bible you'd know that going with you feeling and trusting you "heart" is considered foolish. The Bible says the heart can be wicked, important decision should be made from what you know and not what you feel. The Bible actually incourages you to increase your knowledge and understanding. Believing isn't about some fuzzy feeling you have inside you, its about knowledge.

No offense to anyone who is deeply religous but religon is what restrains man from the peaceful ideals of science one such case is so impervious to outside beliefs that they teach their own children to hate anyone who doesnt believe in something that does not exsist. (ala, christ, god, moses/middle east/ NAZIs(booo))

What about Stalin, Lenin or Mao? Absence of religion really made those men "peaceful". You know Athesist can be just as impervious to religion as religous people are to other religions.

phreak

Jul5-04, 02:07 AM

What about Stalin, Lenin or Mao? Absence of religion really made those men "peaceful". You know Athesist can be just as impervious to religion as religous people are to other religions.

Yes, but in today's world, religion seems to be the cause of many problems.

Atheism hasn't been the cause of problems for quite a long time.

[This conversation seems to be going toward the direction of an argument rather than a discussion. Try to steer it the other direction, because good rarely comes from an argument]

zhaggy

Jul5-04, 05:30 AM

it depends on how you wish to look at God's existence...
either as a know-it-all,or as a catalyst,
who brings about change from one moment to another.
thus in theory creating new universes in different dimensions

TsunamiJoe

Jul5-04, 10:58 PM

thas a good point very few wars have began not based on religion, though WW1 wasnt on religion and still big but the crusafdes on theotherhand i think were worse, meybe?

n0n

Jul6-04, 12:43 PM

god is this: a wise man once said to be wise is to know you know nothing, and I shall add this, pun intended. get it?

What is nothing? Nothing is chaos, what does all of pi explain?, an unperfect circle for it cannot reach a whole. what is nothing to stop logic? nothing blocks pi from reaching a whole, a limit to something is nothing, and it can be as forcefull as the logic itself.
and so,
inf. n=1->
N = inf. distance & inf. closeness (or Time and Nothing)
0 = inf. # of N note: inf. means any number
N = (0*10^n) (0/10^n) note: 0 represents a # of N
nothing = N0N
something = N0N/N0N and the reduction to the least common denominator and nothing
something within time = the continual providance of such an act/ repetition of the reduction in ever changing complexity to order (multi - fractals).

what is order to ever changeing complexity? is it a single fractal? but fractals cannot explain the universe within a whole, but it does explain our individual minds. the idea of multi-fractal can. but do not doubt the size of infinity, for as our universe will die it will become like eather a seed or like the randomness that causes the seed to grow. it will take an almost infinite amount of time but it will happen and existance will all occur again in some other way. for the infinitness of a multi-fractal would be so huge that our universe is at that point of infinite closenes, at this time.

The word of a N0N who truely understands N0N/g0d can only be as clear as the whole of N0N/g0d needs it to be. people who belive in things happen because of some devine intervention are crazy, things happen because thier is a logical process for things to happen, and if you want to apply some super power to it go for it, but that idea limits the human creativity, and thierfor limits your understanding of N0N/g0d, and is not consistant with the logic of N0N/g0d.

live in peace with all, do not war with anyone over things that do not need war over, and that should be the way of it always. Do not war over missunderstanding, war over the fact that one chooses not to understand. But do not fight, discuss as a war of intellectual blending to find both your answers as a correctness, and peace will exist. This is really hard for humans but it must be done or the conflict will rise to a point of no return and we could very well end our own being just from one button (lol humanity is so lame that we have a selfdestruct button, well symbolically anyways)

Entropy

Jul7-04, 12:32 AM

thas a good point very few wars have began not based on religion, though WW1 wasnt on religion and still big but the crusafdes on theotherhand i think were worse, meybe?

Actually most wars are fought for personal reasons and then people create religious excuses for it. But its also the same is for scientific theories which have also been used to create excuses for horrible things, like social-darwinism.

And your crazy if you think the crusades could even compare to WW1. With the invention of machine guns and mass production aloud armies to be created far faster, meaning it was easier to get more soldiers which inturn lead to more massacars. Not to mention also the development of chemical warfare.

TsunamiJoe

Jul7-04, 03:11 AM

i meant on deathscale *sigh* there were like 10 some odd crusades wasnt there? HUGE BATTLES i believe it to be larger then ww1 in my opinion

Deca-of-CD

Jul7-04, 07:25 AM

Death scale?.. (since i dunno about WWI's counts, i will use WWII's)

Russians: Something like, 450,000
Allies: ~400,000
Nazi-Germans: Like.. +20some million
Holocaust Victims: ~9mil
Japan (fighting and a-bombs): Haven't a clue, but I'm guessing higher than 100k..

And I thought there was like... 14 Crusades.... .. . .and what was the point of the Crusades? o.O

And Entropy, it's spelled massacre ^_^

TsunamiJoe

Jul12-04, 10:31 PM

well not to get seriously off topic im going to tie in the answer to your question with this topic

the crusades as it were i believe was christianity vs. muslims or sommit out in the middle east wasnt it? but if you were a god and such and loved your creation would you protect them or sommit?

yesicanread

Jul22-04, 12:02 PM

You use the circle. I do as well. It is fitting I reply.

1.) The planar congruent triangle is made up of 3 points.
Point symmetry has 3 points.
Reason: given.

3.) The first point symmetry point is AB.
The second point, the centre, could be AA or BB.
The third last point could be AB.
Reason: given.

6.) The triangle made by 3A or 3B is a set of one symmetry point + the centre, and is a congruent triangle to the opposite symmetric point.
Reason: given.

7.) Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.
Format: (1 : the shape, size, and general makeup (as of something printed)).
A triangle is a shape. 2 triangles is 360 degrees. A circle is a shape. A circle is 360 degrees.
Reason. given.

8.) A format/shape/circle = radius action. One radius act does not = a circle format, you need many radius act(ion). One radius action = 180 degrees triangle shape when it causes a reaction via point symmetry.
Reason: given.

9.) Therefore. Congruent triangle = Plane=Circumference !

10.) ( Radius = Action ) < Congruent triangle = Plane=Circumference.

11.) Radius = Radius. So the Congruent triangle = Plane=Circumference existed! Pre-formatted.

12.) So the memory made by the radius/action man to create a reaction. Was already pre-formatted by the radius/action man.
Man = Man, Action = Action. Thought = thought. Existance = existance.
( Radius = Action ) < Congruent triangle = Plane=Circumference.

13.) If existance was before God. Congruent triangle = man = thought. How was the Man, God not in existance. With memory to create ? Answer: God is = to a man. Omnipotent/present, omnesient.

Have a nice day. :devil:

selfAdjoint

Jul22-04, 12:26 PM

Points 1 - 6: Not very clear statement of geometry

Point 7: Dictionary definition

Points 8 - 13: Don't follow from above and constitute (a)private theory, and (b) religion.

yesicanread

Jul22-04, 01:27 PM

Points 1 - 6: Not very clear statement of geometry

Point 7: Dictionary definition

Points 8 - 13: Don't follow from above and constitute (a)private theory, and (b) religion.

I'm sorry selfAdjoint. But I don't completely follow on how 8 - 13 doesn't constitute a complete logical thought that is correct in the order made.

If you would. Please, please show me the direct number in the numbers I listed. And, please, please, tell me how it is flawed.

Anybody who cares too. Look over each number in order and see if it makes sense, number by number. If you see a flaw. Please, please, tell me on this thread what that flaw. Specifically detailed, is.

Thank you.

IronGeek

Jul22-04, 02:53 PM

This thread is silly. So are most theisms, imho, but why bother convincing anyone of it? I feel that the concept of "God" or "gods" are simply catch-all explanations for anything one cannot readily explain. If you think otherwise, that's cool.

reilly

Jul22-04, 04:13 PM

Quite a long time ago David Hume, for all practical purposes, suggested that you can't prove anything. Godel did much the same thing -- roughly speaking, he came up with the formal version of, How high is up? To attempt to force "reality" into a particular mode by means of language is and will always be a fruitless endeavor. As far as nature is concerned, human language is not the voice of command, but rather the voice of description.

That being said, for those interested in such things, there is a fascinating book of a few years ago; Brain Science & The Biology of Belief: Why God Won't Go Away, by A. Newberg MD, Eugene D'Aquili , V. Rause. They suggest, on the basis of clinical work including brain scans, that we well might be hardwired to have the concept of God, ior, at least some of us.

Regards,
Reilly Atkinson

drumrboi

Aug17-04, 02:54 AM

I'm no authority on this subject but I just spent the last half hour or so reading an extremely informative article concerning this topic. The article can be found here: http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr1995/r&r9505a.htm?overture.com
This guys insight is unreal. Anyhow, enjoy.

J.Troy

Aug24-04, 03:12 AM

Imparcticle wrote

"I suggest you get your facts straight. There have been multiple instances where historians have admitted that the historical references made in the bible are infact, true. That is, consistent with the history books. There have been quite a few documentaries concerning this on the History Channel. Though I could not find
exactly what I was looking for on the History Channel web site ( ironically, I found an essay concerning the history of biblical archeaology), I found another site:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aiia/aiia-arch1.html

Note the author is a PhD archaologist. I believe his opinion must have some weight (as he has studied to the highest degree)."
----------------------------------------------------------

The bible is in fact very loosley based on real people and events part myth part fable. Most of which has never been proven. I just took a look at the link you posted and its terrible. Many many claims with very little support.

There is no and i repeat zero extrabiblical evidence of Jesus.
If you think genisis happened i dont know what to tell you
Even the fabled exodus is in doubt.
I could go on but I think you get the point.

If you think the History channel has presented an accurate representation of biblical history you got another thing coming. I suggest you read into MODERN biblical scholarship and perhaps even take a look at the Jesus seminar.

kekly

Aug24-04, 04:10 AM

It's true not all of the bible has been proven however nothing in it has been proven as false either.

J.Troy

Aug24-04, 05:18 AM

It's true not all of the bible has been proven however nothing in it has been proven as false either.

How do you prove a negative claim? You cant.

Can someone prove that my almighty snarfwiddget doesnt exist? No.

Olias

Aug24-04, 05:27 AM

How do you prove a negative claim? You cant.

Can someone prove that my almighty snarfwiddget doesnt exist? No.

One can ask quite simply:Do you believe that the Universe extends beyond our Physical Observational limit?.. if yes then there is no difference in stating that your 'snarfwiddget' more than likely exists there. If one searches for it within our observational limit "Observable Universe", then one can conclude that it exists in some conscious frame of your mind.

How does one convince me that it does 'NOT' exist when you have allready insinuated that it exists?..you think therefore it is!

J.Troy

Aug24-04, 05:58 AM

One can ask quite simply:Do you believe that the Universe extends beyond our Physical Observational limit?..

The simple answer is I dont know. For me to say one way or the other is only speculation.

If one searches for it within our observational limit "Observable Universe", then one can conclude that it exists in some conscious frame of your mind.

How does one convince me that it does 'NOT' exist when you have allready insinuated that it exists?..you think therefore it is!

Point taken.
If you believe it is (regardless if its real or not) then it is.

Pythagorean

Sep1-04, 01:34 AM

I think this is an important point, too, because things like God and the Devil have an influence on the quality of certain people's lives regardless of whether the entities exist in some physical quantity, or just our minds.

Things that exist as a human concept shared by millions still exist, and sometimes have a heavier influence on your current situation; in some cases, even more so than hard, physical objects that you can measure.

maps

Sep22-04, 12:20 PM

"....If God created the world, where was He before Creation?...."
-Mahapurana
Most of you have made the unprovable assumption that there is a god (God). If this assumption is true, then who or what created this God? Did this God exist prior to the Big Bang? If so, how? Where? When? And most important of all - Why?

juju

Sep22-04, 02:14 PM

Hi all,

If any real god exists, it does not care about proofs of its existence or even belief in its existence. Only a real devil would care about that.

Any real god does not need nor want to be worshipped. Only a real devil needs that.

A real god would want you to go about your existence in the best manner possible, and would help if and when it could.

juju

maps

Sep22-04, 02:36 PM

If any real god exists, it does not care about proofs of its existence or even belief in its existence. juju
If that statement is true, then "any real god" doesn't give a damn about us. Thus, there is no real god.

juju

Sep22-04, 02:51 PM

If that statement is true, then "any real god" doesn't give a damn about us. Thus, there is no real god.

That is not what my statement says.It doesn't say that a real god doesn't care about us. It says that a real god doesn't care about our beliefs and theories.

A real god (benevolent as opposed to a devil which is malevolent) would care about our state of being and about our relations with others.

juju

maps

Sep22-04, 04:49 PM

A real god (benevolent as opposed to a devil which is malevolent) would care about our state of being and about our relations with others.
You know, juju, I go out at night and look up into the sky and I am in awe. It is filled with a host of bright shining objects. Some of these are part of the tens of billions of stars in our own Milky Way. The rest are tens of billions of distant galaxies each of which contain another tens of billions of stars. Now, if there were a real god overseeing these trillions upon trillions (ad infinitum) of stars (I refer you to Carl Sagan's book "COSMOS") why would he, she, or whatever it may be, care in the teeniest way "about our state of being and about our relations with others." Therefore I find your statement totally untrue. There is no "real god".

Mahler765

Sep22-04, 05:08 PM

The question of why a god would create human beings and allow evil to run rampant through our world is one of the main questions of philosophy. Specifically this is called theodicy, or the study of evil. As to why that god would care about us, there is a simple answer. Stating that there is indeed a god would imply by definition that that god would be greater than ourselves. Since human beings do actually exist, it proves that that god would have to create us as it would be impossible to create ourselves.
Also, before attempting to simply state that there is no god, just try to prove that a rock doesn't or does exist. Just to get you started, here's how it would go. The simplest argument as to whether the rock exists would be to touch it and say "I'm experiencing this rock and I can describe it. Descartes said 'I think, therefore I am' so since I think and I perceive the rock, then the rock must also be real." As Socrates said, "The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms." So let's define 'touch'. When you put your hand to the wall, what's happening? On a molecular level, the atoms in your hand are only getting closer to the atoms in the wall. A geometric plane can still divide your hand from the wall on a molecular level, so really there is no such thing as touching. This is known as the Zeno Paradox which is the argument that to get from one point to another, you must first travel half the distance to that point. then half the remaining distance and so on to infinity. You will never reach that point. As applied to touching, the molecules in your hand can get closer and closer to the molecules of the wall but they will never actually make contact with one another.
that's enough for now

juju

Sep22-04, 05:12 PM

Hi Maps,

I never said there was a real god. I don't particularly care if there is a real god or not.

What I said was my perspective about what a real god's viewpoint might be.

Actually, I want to exist in a manner consistent with my own idea of what a real, intelligent, good god might view as OK. I don't care objectively if this imagined god is real or not.

juju

maps

Sep22-04, 05:34 PM

Actually, I want to exist in a manner consistent with my own idea of what a real, intelligent, good god might view as OK. I don't care objectively if this imagined god is real or not.
I accept that, juju. By the way, I don't think god, real or imaginary, would ever take any responsibility for the action of any of the organized religions. :cool:

Theelectricchild

Sep22-04, 09:12 PM

Squeeze I dont like your attitude please stop making fun of me!

123rock

Sep25-04, 12:17 PM

The assumptions of god:

1. It has a personality or consciousness.
2. It is all-powerful and all knowing.
3. It controls all reality including the laws of matter or nature.
4. It has always existed.

These assumptions are OK, but The Creator is not subject to his own creation, and thus memory by definition is what he is, as well as love mercy, and all the other stuff.

You think that just because the universe's properties apply in this universe, they apply everywhere. That is not the case.

selfAdjoint

Sep25-04, 04:22 PM

You think that just because the universe's properties apply in this universe, they apply everywhere. That is not the case.

Do you have any evidence besides your own opinion that "everywhere" is not coterminous with "this universe"?

catch.yossarian

Sep25-04, 04:41 PM

"Thou art God"
- Michael Valentine.

123rock

Sep26-04, 08:54 PM

Everywhere outside this universe.

There is no evidence for or against it, but that doesn't mean that the same rules apply, for different universe may or may not have different properties.

By his logic, God made logic to disprove himself.

moca915

Sep29-04, 03:38 AM

Just because you cannot understand something, does not mean that it exists or does not exist...

moca915

Sep29-04, 03:42 AM

As students in physics, we should realize this... Remember when everyone believed the world was flat and one could fall of the end of the earth? Or when we had no idea how small atoms were? Or that light can act as a particle &/or a wave?

Just because you cannot prove something is true does not mean it is false (or the other way around)... do you get my drift?

n0n

Sep29-04, 05:19 AM

uhmm.. whats the difference if a god exists or does not exist. for one ether way heaven is what you make of it, and that goes for hell as well. and can be taken symbolically if you don't belive in a god. so is this really a clashing question, were a yes can also mean no, depending on how you look at it. and with that said, by looking at something from multiple ways how is a god to do the same without changing anything (string theory maybe?) ?

if a god exists, what is it made of? energy? , the multiverse bubbles? , humanity? or can we even think of it as "made of" for a being of unmade is not. and we are made and become, so really god is an entity that transcends everything, and is unmade, .. sounds a lot like nothing to me, dont get me wrong for nothing is the only limit to something so pun the word often and maybe you will see god, or at least a realization of it.

but still, (this is a funny question) what does god smell like?

Necrosis

Oct8-04, 12:20 AM

He smells like a starving kid that was run over by a semi whos driver was too busy talking on his cell phone.

*I state opinions*

From what I have read so far, and I stopped at the end of page 2 or 3, some people need to learn the nature of human beings before stepping into an "argument" like this.

One thing I would like to state, that I believe some people should realize is that....
People don't need to refrain from using "names" or swearing in order to have an intelligent conversation. As "Time" progresses, our vocabulary will grow and shrink accordingly to the culture we subject ourselves to. I was in the Marines. I used to sing cadence calls about Whores and shooting 50 cal's into schoolyards. I also don't believe I am not intelligent, but when I am frustrated and totally believe something and someone keeps trying to make a point about something that I believe I have already re-iterated quite extensively, I feel the need to either say a few choice words, or kick said person in the nuts. It's kinda like having the kids in the back of the car asking "Are we there yet?" Every two seconds, eventually you just tell them to shut their pie holes.

Now some times and some places there are certain restraints that should be complied with, but that's not my argument. My argument is the whole using names and not being intelligent.

So in summary; Hi, I'm Necrosis. I'm kinda mean to people I don't like, but and fiercely loyal to those I do. I'm also a new physics student that loves to learn and achieve more than I should.

Chronos

Oct8-04, 02:05 AM

I disagree. Nothing in this universe forbids a grand design and a creator. In fact, the evidence suggests we live in a universe that is exquisitely fine tuned to enable our existence.

juggle7

Oct10-04, 02:48 PM

Once we define God to be omnipotent, God can make himself to have a personality or consciousness, to be all-knowing, to control all reality including the laws of matter or nature, and to transcend time.

I have proved to myself at least that there is no disproof of God.

Prometheus

Oct10-04, 04:17 PM

Nothing in this universe forbids a grand design and a creator.
Wow!!! I did not realize that you had access to the knowledge of the entire universe. Good for you.

In fact, the evidence suggests we live in a universe that is exquisitely fine tuned to enable our existence.
Is this even relevant? It seems to me like you are working backward. "Fine-tuned" seems to me to be a highly loaded word. I also wonder what you mean by "the evidence". Fortunately, you were kind enough to tell us that your opinion is a fact. Otherwise, we might have our doubts.

Calculex

Oct10-04, 05:49 PM

Do you have any evidence besides your own opinion that "everywhere" is not coterminous with "this universe"?
This is an interesting question and I don't pretend to have a definitive answer. But consider the following:

We have pretty good evidence that all the observable matter (and energy) in the universe originated at a point in space time several billions of years ago in our frame of reference (about 13.7 billion years is the current best estimate). So there is evidence that, at some time in the past, the universe as we know it did not exist.

So to suggest that the laws of physics are absolute is to suggest that the conditions which gave rise to our physical world at the moment of the big bang were predetermined by some laws of physics that existed prior to the big bang. We have no reason at all to believe that this is correct.

It also seems improbable that the laws of physics as we know them are absolute. Life as we know it is based on some very precarious physical properties of matter - such as the physics of the water molecule and hydrogen bonding which permits just the right balance between keeping molecules together and letting them break apart to form something else - a property which seems to be necessary for life to exist. The explanation might be "this is just the way it is" (ie. incredible luck). Another plausible explanation would be: "this question can only be asked in a universe whose laws of physics permit the development of intelligent life-forms" (ie. the anthropomorphic principle).

So based on the evidence that 1. the universe, as we know it, had a beginning and 2. the improbability of good luck, one could conclude that there is some evidence that the laws of physics as we know them are not absolute.

Calculex

Prometheus

Oct10-04, 06:01 PM

So to suggest that the laws of physics are absolute is to suggest that the conditions which gave rise to our physical world at the moment of the big bang were predetermined by some laws of physics that existed prior to the big bang. We have no reason at all to believe that this is correct.
We have no reason to believe that this is incorrect. You say "we" as though you speak for all people, and you say "no" as though you speak for all information. Can you elaborate?

juju

Oct10-04, 06:27 PM

Hi all,

The laws of physics can be, in one sense, both absolute and relative. The basic kernal upon which the laws are built can be the same everywhere. The structures that arise from this kernal can be variable.

I believe that string theory incorporates this view.

In reference to the big bang, it can be seen as a super dupper black hole being exploded by a fluctuation called the inflation field.

juju

bino

Oct10-04, 08:28 PM

"we were not created in the likeness of god, god was created in the likeness of us."

Calculex

Oct10-04, 09:18 PM

We have no reason to believe that this is incorrect.

You are quite right. We lack sufficient information to say one way or the other whether the laws of physics are absolute. But we have some reason not to confidently assume they are.

Of course there may be some laws of physics that are absolute and some that aren't. Those laws that relate to particular particles for example might depend on the conditions during the big bang. On the other hand, gravity might be a universal law.

You say "we" as though you speak for all people, and you say "no" as though you speak for all information. Can you elaborate?
Perhaps I should have said: "There is no reason to believe that this is correct". If you aren't able to say whether the laws of physics are absolute, is there any reason to conclude that they are?

Calculex

Prometheus

Oct11-04, 01:49 AM

Perhaps I should have said: "There is no reason to believe that this is correct".
I would not say that there is NO reason.

If you aren't able to say whether the laws of physics are absolute, is there any reason to conclude that they are?
Of course not. However, this is different from the above. Above, you say NO REASON TO BELIEVE. Here, you are saying CONCLUDE. There is certainly some reason to believe, but certainly not to conclude.

aychamo

Oct11-04, 02:06 AM

Proof:

There is nothing at all to suggest the existance of a god.

Therefore, there is no reason to believe in any such god.

Chronos

Oct11-04, 03:49 AM

Pardon my intrusion. I see no evidence that can possibly 'prove' either assertion.. ie, you can no more prove 1 = 1 than prove 1 <> 1. Given that proposition permits a universe that does not forbid a free will choice, I prefer 1 = 1.

Garth

Oct11-04, 05:45 AM

Proof:

There is nothing at all to suggest the existance of a god.

Therefore, there is no reason to believe in any such god.
Really?
My post #10 on the thread "God"

I find there are four questions that science raises that point beyond science, from physics to metaphysics.
The questions are:
1. Why does the universe bother to exist? As Stephen Hawking has said, “Although science may solve the problem of how the universe began, it cannot answer the question: Why does the universe bother to exist?” He went on to ask, when contemplating the Theory of Everything, “What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?”
2. Why is the universe so fruitful, that is propitious for life? The Anthropic question, “The world is as it is because we are” (S.H.) but why?
3. Why can we solve the mysteries of the universe by scribbling on the backs of old envelopes in an armchair?” (As Einstein is said to have done.) “The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible.” (A.E.)
4. How is that atoms, after bouncing around together for billions of years in a Newtonian way, should produce life and a consciousness capable of asking such awkward questions?

These questions may be given a deistic, theistic or atheist answer; each requires a stance of faith, either in the existence of God or the non-existence of God. The existential choice is yours…

Garth

aychamo

Oct11-04, 08:19 AM

Really?
My post #10 on the thread "God"

Garth

Those four questions in no way suggest the existance of a god. Just because human beings can't answer a question doesn't in any way suggest that a god exists. One's incredulity doesn't imply a god.

Sorry :)

By the way, doesn't your question #3 contradict the other 3?

Garth

Oct11-04, 03:15 PM

aychamo - You are free to make that choice in answer to those questions, others may choose otherwise.
- Garth

GlassDraggon

Oct11-04, 03:21 PM

Assuming there are infinite dimensions outside of our own it would seem logical that we could not possibly work off our our "laws". Imagine for a moment a dimension where there are commonalities (like gravity) but none of our conventional laws hold true- matter and energy can cease to exist ETC.

If this were true then there is nothing stopping us from realizing that we could merely be a reflection of such a dimension. Our reflection would be a little bit distorted and would be less realistic. So OUR god would be the parent dimension, their god would be their governing laws (or whatever else), and there would still have to be an ultimate god which created the dimensions.

I'm sure someone will smash this "mirror" theory. But the fact remains that: god cannot be governed by the laws of our dimension.

juju

Oct11-04, 06:14 PM

HI all,

Your existence is a proof of the possibility of the existence of "God", but not a proof of his/her/its actuality.

However, since you exist, there may exist beings of greater experience and longevity. If this is true, there exists at least one being of maximum experience and longevity. This might be "God".

In the same manner there would exist at least one being of maximum wisdom, one being of maximum power, etc.

Collectively this set of beings contains all the attributes of what would be considered "God".

juju

alexkerhead

Oct11-04, 10:11 PM

No. God does not need memory. Would you also suggest that to have a personality God needs a brain?
God is a metaphore of all the acquired information contained in the known universe. :rolleyes:

Prometheus

Oct11-04, 10:20 PM

aychamo - You are free to make that choice in answer to those questions, others may choose otherwise.
- Garth
God, the daughter of little green trinkies, created the universe last night. As proof, can you show me the night before last? I didn't think so.

You are free to make that choice in answer to those questions, others may choose otherwise.

Taoist

Oct11-04, 11:00 PM

nice group....! My favorite subject especially when the "4 questions' posted by Garth

The questions are:
1. Why does the universe bother to exist? As Stephen Hawking has said, “Although science may solve the problem of how the universe began, it cannot answer the question: Why does the universe bother to exist?” He went on to ask, when contemplating the Theory of Everything, “What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?”
2. Why is the universe so fruitful, that is propitious for life? The Anthropic question, “The world is as it is because we are” (S.H.) but why?
3. Why can we solve the mysteries of the universe by scribbling on the backs of old envelopes in an armchair?” (As Einstein is said to have done.) “The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible.” (A.E.)
4. How is that atoms, after bouncing around together for billions of years in a Newtonian way, should produce life and a consciousness capable of asking such awkward questions?

these have merit..... but simple when time is taken into account. Look at that fourth demension and see what has evolved in its explicit form and you can see evolution as we see history.

Yes ... time need be applied when looking at the beginning. The sense of what are we? Some percieve us as Godly. Or of like harmony; of the one.

To find out Einstein says we need to exceed "c." I say we can.

Believing God exists as an individual or tangible form is not one I can fathom. Knowing the existance of balanced understanding, at least in a metaphysical sense has seduced me to believe. Einstein and especially Tesla had this same problem.

Is there an answer to whether God exists? It is purely subjective to what each said opinion has in belief and has been exposed to.......

Stephen is sharp but his question was spent for a specific crowd. Ask him and see what he says!

Garth

Oct12-04, 07:15 AM

God, the daughter of little green trinkies, created the universe last night. As proof, can you show me the night before last? I didn't think so.

You are free to make that choice in answer to those questions, others may choose otherwise.

But as Uncle Albert said, "What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world.” (A.E.)

Garth

TENYEARS

Oct12-04, 08:16 AM

Uncle Albert was being nice, god had no choice except the choices we make if of course you really consider these things as choices. If I go back in time to the beging of this post and replay it a 1000 times do you think the outcome would be any different? Yet does not my senssory input get analyzed at every moment to make the best possible choice my organism can make with it's surrounding environment. Life is a choiceless choice which can happen no other way. I am cheating though, my knowlege came to me before this deduction using external examples. I have seen the god of mosses and yet I am a fool just like you who struggles to understand my destiny. How can this be? I can see the future the thing you debate so greatly and yet my life is turned upside down. I have understood the creation of the universe and that which all things are made and yet I have no nobel prize. I experince one thing which no one may ever own, certainty in the midst of uncertainty. Sometimes to understand you must walk completely away from everything only to return to find the answer, everywhere.

Garth

Oct12-04, 11:53 AM

TENYEARS - Uncle Albert was being nice to whom?

But as he said, "I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details." (A.E.)

Garth

Prometheus

Oct12-04, 01:02 PM

But as Uncle Albert said, "What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world.” (A.E.)

Garth
I did not read this before. I think that it is an excellent statement.

ballooza

Oct12-04, 04:06 PM

Ey, GlassDragon...
tell me more about this mirror theory, please

juju

Oct12-04, 05:32 PM

Hi,

Maybe the universe is just a school we need to graduate from before seeing the bigger picture. To grauate we need to understand the school.

Anyway I think the universe is a form of holistic chaos. Everything influences everything else forming local and global attractor states. Space/time is fractal.

juju

brandon.irwin

Oct12-04, 09:15 PM

Why would god need a memory? Wouldn't you only need a memory to know things that already happened. What if god always knew what WILL happen rather than what has happened? In that case, would he need a memory since everything that happens is already known in his eyes? From there, I think it probably is just semantics.

If god knew everything at the creation, then it is now a set system. Now, does having a set system contradict the rules?

"2. It is all-powerful and all knowing."
God will know all by knowing what will happen. Since he decided how the set system will be, does this make him all powerfull? If it was his choice, I would think so.

"3. It controls all reality including the laws of matter or nature."
If he made this set system, then yes...this would be true. He decided the laws and how he would control reality.

"4. It has always existed."
Yes, He could have created the system after already existing.

"1. It has a personality or consciousness."
I think we would have to know the meaning/purpose of life to know this one :wink:

Now, can one believe in evolution and God? Of course!

XxFREEofFILTHxX

Oct12-04, 10:29 PM

If God the creator of all things created us with a limit to our logic reasoning, what makes you think you have it figured out? you know well that our system when applied to something greater, cannot define it because it is the higher that tell us what human logic is. you think that the human logic that we use can be applied to God, when well infact we dont understant this world itself. With that i conclude the fault in human logic, which you use against the one who created it. but then again i am using human logic to conclude this.....which further expresses my point in the fault of human logic and how irreliable it is, when you think you have it figured out.

XxFREEofFILTHxX

Oct12-04, 10:33 PM

God again does not depend on any Human thought or any Human system for him to be,........period! Einstien might have been a genius but he is no different than any of us, he still uses logic. It doesnt matter what he says nor i, because i do not understand the supreme truth either and it is even more ignorant and obsurd to have an idea of God when this is true

selfAdjoint

Oct12-04, 11:14 PM

stunner5000pt

Oct12-04, 11:41 PM

Let's say that god exists

this is given from the sources given to us from the books such as the Quran, the Bible, and so on.

The reliability of these sources is questionable

The mere fact that these sources claim that there is a god is questionable

How can we be sure that the books were not written by some insane person?

If it were written by some sane person then why don't we se the same miracles (a flood, locusts, and so on) exngulfing ALL (AND I MEAN ALL) of the disrespectful human race (an autrocity is commited on a regular basis).

hus the mere claim does not have basis because we have no hard evidence of a god, only written text that has been altered over time by the many writers and trascribers.

Taoist

Oct13-04, 02:21 AM

Interesting! There seems to be less articulation when quotes of others are posted without direct reasoning.

More on Mirrors ….. http://www.geocities.com/Omegaman_UK/zoo4.html try this

Every individual possess that simple ability to realize what “is” when the immediate seclusion is lifted. But conversing the knowing or even the “how to” takes a need coupled with foundation.

Think you know what you want? So empirical fact is what you need? Then why are you on this site? Looking for what all man has… forever. All taste that edge and the “prophets” tried to interpret that truth. Galileo and Copernicus were scorned for there questions and answers.

Each of this worlds brilliant minds brought God into the equation even without a symbol. Why?

Time, can never be left out for the “event” of observation must be taken into account. So each moment is an event in time that obviously will affect every event thereafter. Mr Prescott just won a Nobel using that one simple concept in economics.

This metaphor can be furthered in religion; your works. Conscious dictates those works as man’s eventual resolve is balance. How do you choose? Realize now with the eyes open and coast or realize tomorrow, enjoy the ride.

God? What a concept! Have you ever looked at the art of what he has been envisioned as? Beautiful gifts to our feeble minds.

Science is just as fascinating because every opened door adds a link. Astronomy will always humble and gravity alone causes confusion to the sharpest even if you’re a string man.

How did Copernicus figure we were not “it”? Not the center. Just a few days back the world didn’t recognize how trust in government fit into economics.

So you want to know is God real and why we are hear. Let alone a written law on how it works.

Yep, your human! Pay taxes!

Taoist

Oct13-04, 03:20 AM

Since what was written may be unreliable have many levels of interpretation. Herein this is unreliable as interpreted by another.

So is any opinion.

Are all religions or man for that matter wrong to think that what he sees and feels consciously or subconsciously is unreliable. Have you ever had déjà vu? Actual taste of existence and of being when realized stimulates acknowledgement of more than just the physical nature of existence.

To realize that actually every atom affects all others in the universe with humility can mentally suppress obstacles but many questions will need to be asked and answered before seeing.

I coauthored a thesis, PNC Theory, 1982 …. Photo Neuron Conduction shows how our grey matter rides the lightning, left out were the implication as to how our ability to reason and consciousness was born because of this fact. Taking Einstein’s relativity into account if we were able to consciously ride the light we could in effect traverse time.

This concept allows an ability to accept associations to all. It also explains many areas of question such as ESP, déjà vu, intuition and prophets. Do I believe they had envisioned what they wrote about? Certainly! Maybe a little flawed by not knowing how to articulate the event let alone the conversion process of interpretation but be certain something is to be learned.

Each variation of religion has areas that the other left out but only a man’s desire will allow him to receive or pursue the information. Most have a universal message for the most part. All were written by man. We have the answers but choose not to see them.

TENYEARS

Oct13-04, 07:57 AM

Taoist, you are actually thinking very good. Conciousness exists at even more subtle levels, I have proof. Yet I am human so as a human my data is faulty in terms of my experince because even if my so called brain stops what is percieved as electrical activity, in the arrogance of science they would say there is no activity and yet I leave it open and say there may be activity which is not measurable with the present methodology. I can and do have visions of the future that happen and I know they will and call them out before they do. This is impossible unless one thing is true by deductive reseasoning. I am cheating of course because I have figured out what gravity and matter was in 1991. So I do understand the nature of how it ties together. Are you a researcher now?

Taoist

Oct13-04, 01:50 PM

Tenyears, hello and good morning! Research is ongoing with daily life. Never could understand how a day could pass without pursuing a quest of answering questions.

My problem is science and beliefs have many areas to be conveyed but the goal to publish needs a boost.

Diversity of intake has proven to be quite enlightening and has answered many questions. For example life did not need water to begin. It only offered a soup for more diversity.

There are areas of science and religion that need to open up but the proper venue has not been identified and my search continues. Hence my purposes within chat rooms; who are the new minds of tomorrow and can they take up the chore?

Many subjects have been researched and a realization that fossil fuel and nuclear facilities are no longer needed let alone evolution and religious models are coming to a head has this person brewing with a need to articulate with the outside world.

Gravity, matter and light are as one. Neither can be without the other. Or it could be said when one extreme reaches its peak it births the seed of the opposite. Whereas time reoccurs with a loss and a gain of opposites. Transformations occur but neither loose in value we still result to >1.

XxFREEofFILTHxX

Oct13-04, 03:43 PM

Statements of belief should not be part of a rational discussion. Your point that God, as usually defined, is bigger than human beings (I believe the book of Job shows him making that very point) is taken. But then the universe, or even the solar system is bigger than human beings, which does not make cosmology and celestial mechanics foolish enterprises.

well, in which sense is the universe bigger then human beings?
just because it surpasses our limitations of understanding doesnt mean is bigger than us, thats ridiculous. cosmology is simply the study of a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe : which human beings created!
Who set the system? Did we set the system in which we have created to understand things or is science all based on proof? Who are we to know what is right to understand, or really know what proof is, in that matter ? What you dont seem to grasp is how man explains science (based on logic and proof), and yet we fit everything into that system.
science is concept from man......
not man a concept from science or how we personally LIKE how to explain why things work.

it is obsurd for people to only rely on religeon for God, Dont you look at your self and ask why you are? or who you are? who created this? because if you want to rely on logic, it is logic for that reason, for eveything to have a creator. is not there more to all of this? you see god manifest though everything evey day, especially in life itself, and in your rational soul but "YOU" tend to keep "science" in your deviance from God.
there is no limit for God, if God wanted the big bang, fine. if he wanted evolution, fine. i dont care how you explain it is fine with me. it is very self centered to think that you cant have one with the other, and draws idiot not to believe in God.

God is contradicting... so what,....................no one is arguing otherwise. He is Contradicting only because our understanding is a product of limited human logic. with that i conclude that God's logic is a whole new story, that we will NEVER COMPREHEND as long as we are. So it is useless to argue that he is contradicting.
and as far as the whole memory issue goes, its the most retarded thing i have ever herd in my 18 years of life for shure.

Yes God Does not exist!.....................He Over-Exists.
He created Existance itself and for what reason do you think he is subject to Existance?
God is Above existing, PERIOD.

Could any Atheist or Agnostic of you figure this out?..... No

brandon.irwin

Oct13-04, 08:31 PM

XxFREEofFILTHxX, you seem interested in this subject, so I'll pick on you :) Remember, I'm just asking questions. They might not relate to what I believe in.

Do you believe that it's possible that the universe is just a set of physical laws, not governed by some entity? If not, why? Why does there have to be a God? Couldn't we have come into existance without a God? If not, why?

"What you dont seem to grasp is how man explains science (based on logic and proof), and yet we fit everything into that system."
If that were true, would we have religion?

"...you see god manifest though everything evey day, especially in life itself...", Couldn't all of these be related to chaos theory, where everything is a result of actions/states before it?

Taoist

Oct14-04, 01:52 PM

this looks :bugeye: "well, in which sense is the universe bigger then human beings?
just because it surpasses our limitations of understanding doesnt mean is bigger than us, thats ridiculous. cosmology is simply the study of a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe : which human beings created! " :cry:

I created this response but representing to the cosmology of existence as a figNewton to imagination reflects inability to :surprised see a new picture

At least this period will have an effect were conjure cannot represent history.

Almost like asking a "Witness" to explain dinosaur bones. Or why life was not here when distant stars emitted their light and we see it today

Existence has not been explained in laws because of the lack of empirical data which has been limited by both time of pursuit and new concepts not yet explored. Remarks published currently show the pessimisms of man’s selfish individualisms. To be self righteous and confident also incorporates lack of humility. Why do you think Picaso has such a hard time completing his paintings because when approaching the canvass arrogance was forefront but until submission to humility surface the art did not appear.

I need to see proof :devil: That may be a paradox imposed just for you or metal wiring is being tested for sport, you make the call.

In either front the desire for that answer is present, falling back to that instinctive desire of man’s inert need for an explanation of the unknown.

All masters are humble to that existence. Call it what you will. Are you reading this, then so are u.

XxFREEofFILTHxX

Oct14-04, 02:40 PM

first of all, the universe is not just a set of physical laws because there are non-physical laws which we do not understand.
I understand where you are going with this, I agree with what you are implying about how we don't know ANYTHING. The reallity is that we do not know one damn thing in this life.

Religion is based on faith if you knew a single thing about it, not proof. Although you do see the manifestation of God in life, it is not to be considered an explination, it is a result of him. For example, what is gravity? A force you might say, but that is just the effect of gravity and not what explains it or causes it. It doesnt tell us a damn thing.

Second of all if you want to talk about the Chaos Theory, it completely destroys itself simply because it uses reasoning and logic only to conclude that logic and reasoning is wrong and full of errors. In reallity this is, but logically everything destroys everything....you see there I go again with stupid logic, I asume if logic is wrong then what we know is wrong, but i used that type of reasoning to discredit it in the first place. It repeats in a circle of destruction.
In that.... I cannot conclude that I know or dont know. With that said we are left to set it aside. We can apply this to alot of what we think we know, in which it will simply tear itself to shreds.
That is why science keeps rewriting laws everytime they find something new,so they can try to make the universe logical in their logic system. Soon they will find the odds are against them and everything is beyond logic, which in fact they will realize the universe and life itself is not definable......its what defines things.

Now faith, on the other hand is infinite and not nessecarily logicalal, Therefore unlimited.