Can you answer this unanswerable question?

[WingZero]

who made god?

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by WingZero
who made god?

If I could answer this unanswerable question then it wouldn't be unanswerable. Which would mean that I couldn't answer this unanserable question. AGHHH I'm confused.

 

[NateTG]

Man makes god. (Present tense intentional.)

 

[Njorl]

From the liner notes to Aqualung:

In the beginning Man created God; and in the image of Man created he him.

And Man gave unto God a multitude of names, that he might be Lord over all the Earth when it was suited to Man.

And on the seven millionth day Man rested and did lean heavily on his God and saw that it was good.

And Man formed Aqualung of the dust of the ground, and a host of others likened unto his kind.

And these lesser men Man did cast into the void. And some were burned;
and some were put apart from their kind.

And Man became the God that he had created and with his miracles did rule over all the earth.

But as all these things did come to pass, the Spirit that did cause man to create his God lived on within all men: even within Aqualung.

And man saw it not.

But for Christ's sake he better start looking.

 

[phoenixthoth]

loaded question.

here's something I've been stashing away. explanation of terms (G.O.D., 'Beings', etc.) forthcoming if desired:

The Universal Mind is the mind of G.O.D.
It just IS, it has never not been.

To go back before the beginning – does not exist.
The beginning was created even before it began.

Pure form came from the Gift Of Design – Grand Order of Design.

PURE form is what exists in all ‘Beings’.
PURITY comes from the ISNESS – it only changes form in the way of lives lived and not learned – in the way of Parallel lives effecting it.

 

[full-time-climb]

You know how when you see something small and then though science you are able to see smaller and smaller particles and you realize if you could cotinue to see you would see it just keeps getting smaller without end...Well apparently it works the other way as well.

 

[Kakorot]

"who made god?"

By asking that quesion, i could reply to it with another question. "Who made the singularity before the big bang?"
and then you would answer, "its always been there."
and I would tell you, "well, there is your answer for your first question."


Also, and this is just a thought, God could have created himself. ..

What it would look like: All of a sudden God would come flying out of nowhere. And then he would create a being that would appear to look just like him(because it is him, just younger) and you would see this "new" God get thrusted to over the speed of light...and it would go to the past...to the very instant in time where you saw God come out of nowhere. :)

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Kakorot
"who made god?"

By asking that quesion, i could reply to it with another question. "Who made the singularity before the big bang?"
and then you would answer, "its always been there."
and I would tell you, "well, there is your answer for your first question."


Also, and this is just a thought, God could have created himself. ..

What it would look like: All of a sudden God would come flying out of nowhere. And then he would create a being that would appear to look just like him(because it is him, just younger) and you would see this "new" God get thrusted to over the speed of light...and it would go to the past...to the very instant in time where you saw God come out of nowhere. :)

Well, the "He was always there" argument can work, but nothing can "create itself". To create is an action that a being can take. If there is no being, then there can be no action taken by that being.

 

[THANOS]

Nothing was ever created.

 

[Kerrie]

Originally posted by Njorl
From the liner notes to Aqualung:

In the beginning Man created God; and in the image of Man created he him.

And Man gave unto God a multitude of names, that he might be Lord over all the Earth when it was suited to Man.

And on the seven millionth day Man rested and did lean heavily on his God and saw that it was good.

And Man formed Aqualung of the dust of the ground, and a host of others likened unto his kind.

And these lesser men Man did cast into the void. And some were burned;
and some were put apart from their kind.

And Man became the God that he had created and with his miracles did rule over all the earth.

But as all these things did come to pass, the Spirit that did cause man to create his God lived on within all men: even within Aqualung.

And man saw it not.

But for Christ's sake he better start looking.

aqualung truly rocks...excellent contribution Njorl...

 

[Math Is Hard]

Originally posted by full-time-climb
You know how when you see something small and then though science you are able to see smaller and smaller particles and you realize if you could cotinue to see you would see it just keeps getting smaller without end...Well apparently it works the other way as well.

This reminded me of a poem I have always loved:

Big fleas have little fleas
Upon their back to bite 'em
And little fleas have littler fleas
And so on ad infinitum...

-Ogden Nash (I think)

p.s. I think you're right

 

[elwestrand]

God is not suboordinate to time. "made" things exist in time. What is born must die. this is called time. Not only God, but every individual soul has no beginning and no ending. We do not exist in time. Logically, how can you deny this (that something transcends time) what created time? Whatever did create time must have simply always been. It if also had been "made" or "born," then that implies time already exists which is a paradox because it could not have been created before its creator was created. Maybe time is God?

 

[phoenixthoth]

chronos?

 

[elwestrand]

Not too familiar with the Greek mythology. But I do know that in it, Zeus actually is not the most supere God, nor is cHRONOS. iT IS THE gOD OF dESTINY. He is above Zeus because if Zeus were to conquor him, such would be Zeus' destiny and therefore Destiny cannot be conquored. I do not believe God is time, that was just something to think about. I do not believe God is a "person," though.

 

[olde drunk]

i agree that once 'time' is eliminated from consideration, there is no beginning; hence no creation.

believing that we and god, always were and always will be is very logical. unfortunately, other than 'i can not remember a time when i didn't exist' there is no way of proving the assumption.

peace,

 

[phoenixthoth]

this may be another instance of when neither a statement nor its negation leads to a false statement. the statement here being "I am the first cause" or "I am, I was, I will be" (in one form or another, of course). so free will expresses itself perfectly in one's inability to neither prove nor disprove such a statement thus one is free to believe whatever one wishes. don't be surprised though if you go around saying I am the First Cause and you end up crucified (in a modern sense, of course).

 

[devilmech]

I believe that question can be answered simply. If we accept that for every action there is a reaction, the we accept the reciprocal, which is that every reaction must have an action that causes it.

Accepting this, we determine that there must be a "first cause". If one of the characteristics of god is that god created everything, then god must be the first cause.

Therefore, we arrive at the conclusion that no one thing created god. In my view, god = big bang

 

[elwestrand]

In the Indian spiritual tradition, one of the world's oldest, and in no doubt many others from around the world, But God and the human soul have always existed. Neither has a cause. In Christian mythology, God does not create Human beings. He creates their physical bodys. Thus, sadly, Christians and Jews have very little, if any, understanding of a soul. It does not have to be this way of course, but often it is. Christians now aday believe that a person comes into existence when his current physical body is born, yet he will continue to exist after it is dead for eternity. This is logically unsound. By definition something that is eternal transcends time (eternal is by no means "infinite time," that's an oxymoron). Since everything, without exception, in time has a beginning and an ending, time itself must also have a beginning and ending. This is called elwestrand logic. To a quantum physics genius, I believe it is that way. The space-time dimensional fabric first came into being at the big bang and it is also proven through physics that the universe will (in several hundred thousand billion trillion years) destroy itself. Usually these explanations of the universe are used to debunk religion, but in Indian philosophy, all of this was written thousands of years ago. Even the time intervals are correct. Lord Krishna explained this all in Bhagavad-Gita 5000 years ago. He explains that he manifests the universe and then annihilates it again, then manifests it again and annihilates it again. So before our "big bang" another universe existed. of course there "never" was a state of nothingness. Something existed to cause the big bang. Even a potential is something. This cycle simply has no beginning. "inbetween" manifestations, time does not exist.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by elwestrand
God is not suboordinate to time. "made" things exist in time. What is born must die. this is called time. Not only God, but every individual soul has no beginning and no ending. We do not exist in time. Logically, how can you deny this (that something transcends time) what created time? Whatever did create time must have simply always been.

How long, elwestrand, can you exist, if there is no time? At what point in...time...did God create time? Finally, if God existed for an infinite amount of...time...before creating everything else, how is it that He reached the "end of infinity". IOW, how does one go on forever doing nothing before they do something?

I hope this thread isn't too religious for the Forums, it has interesting possibilities.

 

[deda]

I'll post my answer as if I was an religious man:
God is unmadeable.
God is, was and will be.
God is also undestructible.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by deda
I'll post my answer as if I was an religious man:
God is unmadeable.
God is, was and will be.
God is also undestructible.

Ok..."unmadeable"?

Anyway, that is the position that one must, logically, take by default - since, if something created "god" then that is the true "God" and originator of all things.

 

[elwestrand]

How long, elwestrand, can you exist, if there is no time? At what point in...time...did God create time? Finally, if God existed for an infinite amount of...time...before creating everything else, how is it that He reached the "end of infinity". IOW, how does one go on forever doing nothing before they do something?

Hi.

"How long, elwestrand, can you exist, if there is no time?"

Our language is not modeled to deal with concepts that transcend tim. Your question is logically invalid. By asking "how long" you are placing it in the context of time. With no time, there is no "how long" "how short."

"At what point in...time...did God create time?"
The same as before. By stating "in time" you're implying that time already exists before it is manifested. The topic is certainly not religious. This is called knowledge. Some of the most athiestic people around will claim that life is a "mathematical inevidability" they believe that everything is guided by the laws of probability and mathematic principles. Maybe in another 1 million years of evolution, humans will be intelligent enough to say: "maybe the laws of probability and mathematic principles ARE God!" Or at least aspects of it.

"Finally, if God existed for an infinite amount of...time...before creating everything else, how is it that He reached the "end of infinity".

Infinite time is an oxymoron. The meaning of eternity is not "infinite time" Eternity simply transcends all concepts of "Ammount." In eternity, there is no past or future. What normally would be past and future is in the present. This is very different from an infinite length of time. I think this will answer your question. If in eternity what we perceive as past and future, is persent, then there is simply no such thing as "the end of infinity" or "before everything else." It is very mind-boggling, but if you really think about it, it will seem true. And I don't even know about the 6th and 7th dimensions!

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by elwestrand
Hi.

How do you do?

"How long, elwestrand, can you exist, if there is no time?"

Our language is not modeled to deal with concepts that transcend tim. Your question is logically invalid. By asking "how long" you are placing it in the context of time. With no time, there is no "how long" "how short."

No "how long"? Then it lasted for no time at all, right?

"At what point in...time...did God create time?"
The same as before. By stating "in time" you're implying that time already exists before it is manifested.

By using the term "before", you too are presupposing a "time" framework.

The topic is certainly not religious. This is called knowledge.

And religion doesn't deal with "knowledge"?

"Finally, if God existed for an infinite amount of...time...before creating everything else, how is it that He reached the "end of infinity".

Infinite time is an oxymoron. The meaning of eternity is not "infinite time" Eternity simply transcends all concepts of "Ammount." In eternity, there is no past or future. What normally would be past and future is in the present. This is very different from an infinite length of time. I think this will answer your question. If in eternity what we perceive as past and future, is persent, then there is simply no such thing as "the end of infinity" or "before everything else." It is very mind-boggling, but if you really think about it, it will seem true.

If what you think of as past and future are really present, then there was no past, and is no future, and you exist for absolutely not time at all, which gives you no time to do all of this speculation, right?

 

[Deeviant]

Originally posted by NateTG
Man makes god. (Present tense intentional.)

I agree with Nate.

We humans needed a divine power that could give significance to our lifes, and to combat the fear of death. So far he remains one of our best creations I would say, if it were't for the many people tortured, killed or otherwise wronged in the name of god or like diety.

 

[phoenixthoth]

that was quite humorous!

yeah, i feel SO significant next to an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being!

yeah, i am so fearless of death knowing that i may go to hell!

 

[elwestrand]

Originally posted by Mentat
How do you do?

No "how long"? Then it lasted for no time at all, right?

By using the term "before", you too are presupposing a "time" framework.

And religion doesn't deal with "knowledge"?

If what you think of as past and future are really present, then there was no past, and is no future, and you exist for absolutely not time at all, which gives you no time to do all of this speculation, right?

Hi. In answer to the first one: It niether "lasted" no time nor infinite time, and obviously not fir finite time. There simply IS NO TIME.

to the second: yeah, By using "before," I am. This is because our language is not well suited to desctribe things existing without time. I believe there is a native American tribe who's language is absent of any concept of time. It the previous answer: by saying "lasted" I am also presupposeing a time framework.

Religion deals with knowledge but knowledge alone has nothing to do with religion.

To the last: my comparison of untime to the past and future being present always is merely a metaphor to help understand... Untime is another dimension, you cannot comprehend unless you have experience it.

 

[elwestrand]

In my perspective, God is not creation of man, dreamt up in imagination. That theory is very incomplete. It does not answer WHY we need to feel significance in our lives. If there were no significance to begin with, and all of creation is just a random, absurd, accident without any meaning, then it follows, logically, that all of its products would alse be like that. We would not have a need to feel "significant" if there were no significance to begin with.

 

[Deeviant]

Originally posted by elwestrand
In my perspective, God is not creation of man, dreamt up in imagination. That theory is very incomplete. It does not answer WHY we need to feel significance in our lives. If there were no significance to begin with, and all of creation is just a random, absurd, accident without any meaning, then it follows, logically, that all of its products would alse be like that. We would not have a need to feel "significant" if there were no significance to begin with.

I would have to disagree. The theory is well supported by, well, every bit of data that science has discovered. We have evolution that describes the origin of man, we have psychology that has positively identified parts of the brain associated with our emotions, creative thinking, and other brain functions. We have cosmology, that has began to tackle questions that once could only been asked in a religious or philosophical tone and it has being doing this with science.


You view is the product of emotion and conjecture(I'm not saying that is bad...), while I plant my ideas firmly scietific, repeatable and most importantantly correct data(but I am saying that I am closer to truth)

 

[elwestrand]

"The theory is well supported by, well, every bit of data that science has discovered. We have evolution that describes the origin of man, we have psychology that has positively identified parts of the brain associated with our emotions, creative thinking, and other brain functions. We have cosmology, that has began to tackle questions that once could only been asked in a religious or philosophical tone and it has being doing this with science.


You view is the product of emotion and conjecture(I'm not saying that is bad...), while I plant my ideas firmly scietific, repeatable and most importantantly correct data(but I am saying that I am closer to truth)"

Am, the theory is not supported by every bit of data that science has discovered, rather, the theory is supported by your own emotional interpretation of the data. Tell me why the theory of evolution, if true, must exclude God? Are you aware that there are religions whose anscient teachings are in line with evolution and modern cosmology? Or are you only aware of the biblical creation story and that is a far as your religious and spiritual knowledge extends? Evolution theory does not explain origin of phsyical life, only its devolopment. Scientific expiriments have consistently failed to "proove" evolutionary theory's conjecture about the origin of life-- but even if that conjecture were true, it would not proove that God does not exist! Also, evolution theory and all that attempts to explain the physical organism, which actually has nothing to do with the soul. It is accepted that it is not possible to proove or disproove existence of a soul or God, scientifically.

 

[Deeviant]

Originally posted by elwestrand
"The theory is well supported by, well, every bit of data that science has discovered. We have evolution that describes the origin of man, we have psychology that has positively identified parts of the brain associated with our emotions, creative thinking, and other brain functions. We have cosmology, that has began to tackle questions that once could only been asked in a religious or philosophical tone and it has being doing this with science.


You view is the product of emotion and conjecture(I'm not saying that is bad...), while I plant my ideas firmly scietific, repeatable and most importantantly correct data(but I am saying that I am closer to truth)"

Am, the theory is not supported by every bit of data that science has discovered, rather, the theory is supported by your own emotional interpretation of the data. Tell me why the theory of evolution, if true, must exclude God? Are you aware that there are religions whose anscient teachings are in line with evolution and modern cosmology? Or are you only aware of the biblical creation story and that is a far as your religious and spiritual knowledge extends? Evolution theory does not explain origin of phsyical life, only its devolopment. Scientific expiriments have consistently failed to "proove" evolutionary theory's conjecture about the origin of life-- but even if that conjecture were true, it would not proove that God does not exist! Also, evolution theory and all that attempts to explain the physical organism, which actually has nothing to do with the soul. It is accepted that it is not possible to proove or disproove existence of a soul or God, scientifically.

Actually its supported by my UNemotional interpretation of the data, which by the way, is how science works. I am well aware of the changing of certain religions to bring evolution and cosmology, but this only suggests that their beliefs are not supported by science and they actually are willing to change some of their core interpretations just to make it more believable.

It is much like the steady state theory vs the big bang. The steady state theory was the reigning king for a while but it kept running into problems. It changed and morph and got so convoluted and finally it just broke down and surrendered to the big bang theory. Whenever you have to constantly change your current theory as to not be flat out wrong(provably wrong), when your theory does no reflect the data collected, when your theory was developed thousands of years ago one must drop all context of science or realism and call it a religion.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by elwestrand
Hi. In answer to the first one: It niether "lasted" no time nor infinite time, and obviously not fir finite time. There simply IS NO TIME.

Those are exacly the words I used "No time". So, it existed for "no time"...right?

to the second: yeah, By using "before," I am. This is because our language is not well suited to desctribe things existing without time.

Of course not, since it takes a certain amount of time to describe something. It takes a certain amount of time to think about describing something. It even takes a certain amount of time to learn enough about the thing to be able to explain it.

Religion deals with knowledge but knowledge alone has nothing to do with religion.

I could contest the possibility that you are wrong here, but there's not point arguing every point .

To the last: my comparison of untime to the past and future being present always is merely a metaphor to help understand... Untime is another dimension, you cannot comprehend unless you have experience it.

But experiencing it would take a certain amount of time, wouldn't it?

 

[elwestrand]

Originally posted by Mentat
Those are exacly the words I used "No time". So, it existed for "no time"...right?

But experiencing it would take a certain amount of time, wouldn't it?

Apparently you got me. Again, the language is not suited. Okay, it is more accurately neither with time nor without time.

The answer to "experiencing untime would take a certain amount of time" depends on which perspective you use. To the perspective that exists within time, it might "take some time" for something to blink out of time, experience it, and blink back... but to the perspective that actually experiences it, this is not ture. For example, an example using only time, say you went in a very fast vehicle and flew around the universe. Now, according to relativity time occours to you at a slower pace... so you may have only experienced a few days, then you come back to Earth... but millions or years have passed on Earth even though for you it was only a few days.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by elwestrand
Apparently you got me. Again, the language is not suited. Okay, it is more accurately neither with time nor without time.

You must be one or the other, musn't you? After all, if you take it one step at a time, you would first say: I am without time.
Then you would say: I am not without time.
Then I would say: Huh?

The answer to "experiencing untime would take a certain amount of time" depends on which perspective you use. To the perspective that exists within time, it might "take some time" for something to blink out of time, experience it, and blink back... but to the perspective that actually experiences it, this is not ture. For example, an example using only time, say you went in a very fast vehicle and flew around the universe. Now, according to relativity time occours to you at a slower pace... so you may have only experienced a few days, then you come back to Earth... but millions or years have passed on Earth even though for you it was only a few days.

Absolutely. And, if you could travel at the speed of light (which you can't, btw...trying to avoid too much needless speculation on that issue - at least for this thread) it would take no time at all, but then you would not have experienced anything either...since experience takes time.

 

[elwestrand]

Originally posted by Deeviant
I am well aware of the changing of certain religions to bring evolution and cosmology, but this only suggests that their beliefs are not supported by science

Which religions?
In the bhavaghad-gita, 5000 years old, Lord Krishna clearly explains the creation of the universe which could be considered big bang, and he also states that it will also be annihilated. I've asked some scholars of the scriptures for the actual duration of the universe and I got 3 quadrillion, 153 trillion and 600 billion years.

A far cry from Genesis.

 

[elwestrand]

Originally posted by Mentat
but then you would not have experienced

No, you would not have experienced anything from the prespective of a time-based consciousness. That is the whole point. If the consciousness is time-based, it cannot not by definition expereince untime, it will merely not interpret it at all and it will be oblivious of it. The brain is not capable of experiencing untime.

Actually, our spiritual consciouness, which is beyond the brain, which flows into the brain, is untime-based. We are submerged in untime.

 

[Deeviant]

Originally posted by elwestrand
Which religions?
In the bhavaghad-gita, 5000 years old, Lord Krishna clearly explains the creation of the universe which could be considered big bang, and he also states that it will also be annihilated. I've asked some scholars of the scriptures for the actual duration of the universe and I got 3 quadrillion, 153 trillion and 600 billion years.

A far cry from Genesis.

Ok so I take you you intrepreted "certain religions" to be "which ever religion that YOU could think of". However, in this case, it is whatever religions that I am thinking of that I do not wish to specifically name because I don't want to turn this into a theological argument.

I'm sorry elwestrand, I don't mean any offense but you arguments here and on many other threads seem very loosely based upon any sort of validity, reality, or truth.

And if you are not looking any sort of validity, reality, or truth, but only to create your own in your own image(sound familiar). I suggest writing some fictious books, you could perhaps earn a living at what you seem to enjoy.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by elwestrand
No, you would not have experienced anything from the prespective of a time-based consciousness. That is the whole point. If the consciousness is time-based, it cannot not by definition expereince untime, it will merely not interpret it at all and it will be oblivious of it. The brain is not capable of experiencing untime.

Actually, our spiritual consciouness, which is beyond the brain, which flows into the brain, is untime-based. We are submerged in untime.

Cartesian Dualism? The current philosophy of the mind usually holds that as a faux pas...perhaps I should put this in the form of questions:

1. Is the "spritual consciousness" physical?

 

[elwestrand]

I don't have arguments here.
I do not like religion.
I also do not care much about reality or "validity" it is true, please do not assume otherwise. I have no taste for reality, maybe parareality or transreality.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by elwestrand
I don't have arguments here.
I do not like religion.
I also do not care much about reality or "validity" it is true, please do not assume otherwise. I have no taste for reality, maybe parareality or transreality.

O...k...is the consciousness physical?

 

[elwestrand]

I don't know anything about Cartisian dualism, other thatn a lot of people don't like it. but I have already posted a long introduction By Chris Langan which speaks about it, somewhere. I renounce this forum though because I feel this sort of philosophy is a waste of life. It merely gratifies curiosity and ego. What does it matter if "cartisian duality" is "valid?" Believing or not believing it will not affect one's quality of life in the long run.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by elwestrand
I don't know anything about Cartisian dualism, other thatn a lot of people don't like it. but I have already posted a long introduction By Chris Langan which speaks about it, somewhere. I renounce this forum though because I feel this sort of philosophy is a waste of life. It merely gratifies curiosity and ego. What does it matter if "cartisian duality" is "valid?" Believing or not believing it will not affect one's quality of life in the long run.

Then why did you posit the "spiritual consciousness" in the first place? What is it that you believe in?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by WingZero
who made god?

That still doesn't get around the fact that "we" exist. In which case I think we should be asking "who" made us?

Isn't it possible for us to create things? If so, then why couldn't something create us? Sounds pretty plain and simple to me.

 

[Deeviant]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
That still doesn't get around the fact that "we" exist. In which case I think we should be asking "who" made us?

Isn't it possible for us to create things? If so, then why couldn't something create us? Sounds pretty plain and simple to me.

We our children of the universe. It created us.

We still don't know what created the universe, so that's as far as we can go for now.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Deeviant
We our children of the universe. It created us.

We still don't know what created the universe, so that's as far as we can go for now.

And yet would you go so far as to say the Universe was unintelligent? Because it sure doesn't appear to be designed that way.

Look at ourselves. Doesn't that suggest the Universe was designed to evolve and sustain intelligence?

And so I ask, Who was the intelligence behind what created us?

 

[Deeviant]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet would you go so far as to say the Universe was unintelligent? Because it sure doesn't appear to be designed that way.

Look at ourselves. Doesn't that suggest the Universe was designed to evolve and sustain intelligence?

And so I ask, Who was the intelligence behind what created us?

What law states intelligence must be created from intelligence? Are you just using the feeling that something as great and neat as ourselfs just MUST be created by something even more great and even neater?

Well there is no evidence to support this claim, a claim it will remain, unproven.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Deeviant
What law states intelligence must be created from intelligence? Are you just using the feeling that something as great and neat as ourselfs just MUST be created by something even more great and even neater?

Well there is no evidence to support this claim, a claim it will remain, unproven.

There is no evidence? Or no supportable evidence? And who pray tell is going to determine the criteria for supporting it?

 

[FZ+]

There is no evidence? Or no supportable evidence? And who pray tell is going to determine the criteria for supporting it?

You are, since you are the claimant. It is then our job to decide if we accept it, and if it outweighs contrary evidence. If you don't supply evidence, then surely it is reasonable for us to presume you don't have any...

 

[Iacchus32]

From the the Internet Infidels' thread, http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=78035 ...

"The kingdom of heaven is within." Therefore I think if science can even hope to solve this -- if, in fact that's its intent -- then it's going to have to toss aside the fact that only a "physical" reality exists, and consider the fact that as human beings we possesses what you might call "a soul."

 

[FZ+]

I fail to see how that quote makes any sense at all.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
I fail to see how that quote makes any sense at all.

I'm saying the evidence is within us and that this is where we need to look. While I doubt very much that we'll find it in the outer "physical universe," unless of course we had the means by which to mirror it in ourselves, through the means of "our soul."