Atheism as simply another belief system

[Entropy]

well how can this "being" exist? who made him? if he was there all along, when did he decide to build a universe?

You cannot use the word "made" because it refers to a point before time, let's not forget that it was God who created time. God has no constrants and therefore is not defined by a temporal or any other dimension.

a good theory amongst big bang people is, that there are more universes like this, and like reactions in a gas, they appear and die out all over the place... in order for this theory to work, the universe will have to collapse at some point and go back to being pre-big bang matter...
thus, this matter could have existed infinitely...

In other words time goes in a loop or has no beginning or end? Then how did we get to this point in time? What is the reason for time? Who else could give time and space reason [to be] but God? Can you think of anything that didn't happen for some reason (or because of some mechanism)?

Did you ever think about the fact that free will would require something from nothing?

I don't understand your reason for saying that. I just stated that something can't come from nothing unless God exists.


I think maybe some of you thought I was trying to be hostile in my comment. Sorry if I sounded that way, I didn't mean to sound forceful. I was only trying to explain why I think there is a God.

 

[Dissident Dan]

I don't understand your reason for saying that. I just stated that something can't come from nothing unless God exists.

I think maybe some of you thought I was trying to be hostile in my comment. Sorry if I sounded that way, I didn't mean to sound forceful. I was only trying to explain why I think there is a God.

I was hoping that someone else would try to figure it out, but here goes. If everything is caused by physical laws, then there is no free will. If everything is not caused by physical laws, then you do not have equal-and-opposite interactions by causality. If interactions are not equal-and-opposite, then you have something from nothing (momentum from nothing). If the interations do not follow rules, then you have an occurence from nothing.

 

[yesicanread]

I was hoping that someone else would try to figure it out, but here goes. If everything is caused by physical laws, then there is no free will. If everything is not caused by physical laws, then you do not have equal-and-opposite interactions by causality. If interactions are not equal-and-opposite, then you have something from nothing (momentum from nothing). If the interations do not follow rules, then you have an occurence from nothing.

" Planck's constant, h, has units of energy multiplied by time, which are the units of action.

Since energy is conserved, Action = Reaction, so your inequality becomes:

Action < 2*Action

A true statement. "

I got a theory. Would you like me to paste it here for you to ?

Edit. Here: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v83/cjsKtU/Hey.jpg

 

[Locrian]

Action = Reaction is not meaningful in QM. It was a very false statement.

 

[yesicanread]

If you even bothered to read the link I gave. You would have seen the Geometry. How there are 2 reactions from the 1 action.

Action = Action true. But it has to pass equal and opposite reaction first.

If you knew how smart you would be in your entire life. You would know the halfway point. You would pass that point to learn what else you should know.

How are you certain of the halfway point ?

My geometry proves such a point exists.

Read it.

 

[motai]

Personally I believe in God. Of course this is only my opinion and any arguments will not convince me otherwise. I am not quite sure of the nature of God, but I am still trying to find that out. My personal beliefs are, however, different from most church-going people. The notion of a God in white-clad robes swirling about in the clouds seems rather far-fetched to me. I think of him in a more scientific manner.

Everytime I see a theory that I can relate to another theory, or see some sort of pattern (order from chaos, etc) that emerges from observations that fits with something else, I can't help but think of there being some sort of deeper significance to it. I guess one could say that I am on a quest for meaning. Its probably one of the reasons that I am so interested in the scientific field.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Everytime I see a theory that I can relate to another theory, or see some sort of pattern (order from chaos, etc) that emerges from observations that fits with something else, I can't help but think of there being some sort of deeper significance to it. I guess one could say that I am on a quest for meaning. Its probably one of the reasons that I am so interested in the scientific field.

I can see where you could get a strong sense of the numinous out of science, but not a personal god - one with human attributes.

 

[olde drunk]

I understand, I was assuming you were talking about your conciousness. I will re-ask the question while trying to clarify:

Please describe your existence during a time when your current physical body did not exist.

Have you accessed this unconcious? Do you have memories of an experience before you were human? (Haven't I asked you this one before in another thread?)
To pose the question differently:
Do you believe that after your current physical body expires that you (your conciousness) will retain all the memories you have acquired as a human? Or do you start over, blank slate?
Forgive all the questions.

KC: everything we encounter in this life will be bent or filtered by your beliefs. at present, science can not quantify what we sense. so, when i talk about what i feel or sense it is not like getting a poke in the eye by a sharp stick.

when i heard about off-the-wall ideas back in the 60's, i did some exploration. i accepted what felt right to me and it seems to have improved the quality of my experiences. i accept god as an energy essence, perhaps a universal consciousness that we are all a part of (terrible grammar).

i also have taken time to feel my full being (mind, body, soul and whatever other aspects we may have). for me, dreams are more informative than meditation. although, i have learned to accept myself with all my failings, through meditation. these areas of self are valid while scientifically elusive.

i have said in the past, it really doesn't matter what one believes because all our beliefs are necessary to experience whatever lessons we have chosen.

that said, i have seen where changing beliefs has improved my experience. an example: if i had not strongly believed in catholicism, i would not have been disappointed at it's short comings. That disappointment led me to explore and accept alternate phlosophies. I changed my beliefs and (WOW) i changed my experiences. I was able to see and feel a different world.

bottom line - can i prove to you that you are multi-dimensional? no. i make my comments to show that you don't risk damnation by questioning god or any other authority. i have had fun, and can only recommend that others explore. hey, our next great scientist may be an atheist. so what, as long as his/her contribution improves the quality of life. that's her/his trip!

sorry i can't give you concrete proof of a broader reality. my comment are my truth, you can only find your truth. have fun, life is a game!

love&peace,
olde drunk

 

[motai]

I can see where you could get a strong sense of the numinous out of science, but not a personal god - one with human attributes.

A god with human attributes that many Americans believe in doesn't quite fit into my own personal beliefs anyway. I try to keep an open mind about it, not jumping to conclusions like many of my friends. I just have a feeling that there might be 'something' out there that might loosely conform to the notion of a god. That is what I am searching for.

 

[Locrian]

If you even bothered to read the link I gave. You would have seen the Geometry. How there are 2 reactions from the 1 action.

My geometry proves such a point exists.

Read it.

I did read it. It is awfully incorrect, at every turn. For instance, three planars does not make a plane; three points makes a plane. Therefore your triangle is wrong.