HOME       >>       Science and Technology

Does God Exist?


Grafitti

Evolution cannot really be compared to creationism. Evolution does not provide an explanation of how everyhting started. It just proposes that species/sub species change over time. Evolution does not necessarily debunk creationist religions. One can believe in both evolution and creationism (christianity for example).
Evolution is a fact. It has been proven and there are countless examples to back it up. I am not saying that we all came from monkeys, but it is a fact that animals can evolve over generations many generations. Cetain types of diseases evolve quite rapidly, many times due to their sloppy genetic encoding during replication, resulting in many mutations, which over time lead to new characteristics. The Incan people who lived up in extremely high altitudes developed larger hearts and lungs which helped them breath in high altitude/low oxygen. There are many many other examples.

As for me, I guess I would be considered agnostic. I don't have enough information to come to any definite conclusion so I choose not to commit to a specific theory.

As Arbitrary said these discusions tend to go no where in online forums and it tends to be a touchy subject.
This forum is full of many different people from diverse backgrounds, cultures, beliefs and places and that creates a wonderful opportunity to learn from each other. I would rather celebrate and our differences, rather than argue over them.

Yeah. I'd just like to point out that what you just cited is adaptation, not evolution. Otherwise if we say that adaptation is the evolutionary process, then anyone who goes to a gym is in an evolutionary transitional stage because their muscles are growing so that they can lift more.
Evolution would be, say, a canary becoming an eagle so that it wouldn't get eaten by the eagles. Proof for evolution would be a case of species transformation. Even just one case would give it some sort of basis.

foolakadugie

Yeah. I'd just like to point out that what you just cited is adaptation, not evolution. Otherwise if we say that adaptation is the evolutionary process, then anyone who goes to a gym is in an evolutionary transitional stage because their muscles are growing so that they can lift more. Evolution would be, say, a canary becoming an eagle so that it wouldn't get eaten by the eagles. Proof for evolution would be a case of species transformation. Even just one case would give it some sort of basis.


No these are examples happening over generations and generations, not to one specific oraganism but a group of organisms. When a organism adapts, that is specific to that individual oragnism in it's lifetime. Lifting weights doesn't change your genetic code. I am talking about actual changes in their genes. My examples may not show an enite species changing into another but in an isolated area that group changes over time, not enough to become another species, but they did change noticeably and if given more time they cold evolve further.

BitShift

I just wanted to say this.I read somewhere that a group of mathmeticians got together and they did statistics on a bunch of these theories and there probability of happening.From what I understand, the probability of life being created WITHOUT a God, is equal to filling the entire universe with blind men with a rubix cube, and having them all solve it simultaneously.I don't know about you guys but the chances of life ever having started without a God is practically ZERO.You can argue and debate all you want over this but in my opinion God exists.


yeh

I just wanted to say this.
I read somewhere that a group of mathmeticians got together and they did statistics on a bunch of these theories and there probability of happening.

From what I understand, the probability of life being created WITHOUT a God, is equal to filling the entire universe with blind men with a rubix cube, and having them all solve it simultaneously.


Well, just out of curiosity, could you put the link to the theory that you mentioned? I am not that interested in disecting that theory now, but who knows in the future? It could be a Sunday morning and I might have nothing else better to do... hehe....

Grafitti

My examples may not show an enite species changing into another but in an isolated area that group changes over time, not enough to become another species, but they did change noticeably and if given more time they cold evolve further.

But logically, then now we should not have lifeforms grouped into the classifications that they are in. there would be mass confusion, and everything would be still evolving. It's too much to assume that they would all evolve at the exact same rate, so how come we don't see transitional lifeforms running around?

foolakadugie

Humans have, for the most part, removed themselves from evolution. I am not saying they don't change, but we have sort of removed ourselves from natural selection, which is one engine of evolution. Our classifications have changed and we are still adding new species to our list. They have just found some new species recently. Even so, most classifications aren't evolving at rapid rates. It would take a very long time for most groups to evovle noticeably. Also, the classification "species" still allows for some differences with in it. Small differences don't completely remove an organism from the classification. Things are still evolving, but it takes a long time for this to happen. species like bacteria are much more rapid in the process because they reproduce at much faster rates. I never said that they all evolve at the same rate. The changes mainly take place in a place with certain conditions. Like I said, the Incas, lived high up in the mountains for a very long time, so eventually there hearts and and lungs became larger because they were in that very specific environment. So those who were born with larger heats and lungs, were suited to live in those conditions and those who didn't, were less likelly to live.


mitchellmckain

Does God exist?

 

I am a Christian and if this thread had been started in the religion section, I would have said yes God exists and I would have pointed out some classical proofs such as in Aristotle's Metaphysics and Charles Sanders Pierce's "Negelected Argument for the Existence of God". However, this thread was started in the Science section and I am a physicist as well as a Christian. As a scientist I must say that God is not objectively observable and therefore within the framework of a scientific discussion, God does not exist.

 

The sciences test theories by making objective observations. Physics in particular simply describes the mathematical relationships between measurable quantities. Can we set up circumstances where objective observations of God can be made? Is there anything about God which is measurable?

 

Ok, lets step outside of science now and dive into that lost topic of philosophy called metaphysics, which is defined as the study of the nature of reality. So in metaphysics we can ask the question, do things which are not objectively observable exist? Are they real? It is said that God is spirit, and the interesting thing about this, in this discussion, is that everything decribed as a spirit or as spiritual shares this characteristic of not being objectively observable or measurable. I find this contrast quite significant. On the one hand we have things described in physics which must be objectively observable and measurable, and on the other hand we have spiritual things which are apparently not objectively observable or measurable.

 

So this suggest the metaphysical question of whether there could be an aspect of reality which lacks this characteristic of being objectively observable. But this is directly related to scientific question. Is the description of the world by science complete? Interestingly enough this is a question that has been answered in physics without such a answer even being sought. In quantum physics it was found that the best description of behavior of the elementary particles of which everything is composed was a probabalistic one. Einstein and others found this unacceptable and proposed that quantum physics was mere incomplete and that there must be hidden variables of which we are not yet aware which are the cause of these apparently random results of measurement. John Stewart Bell derived and inequality which must be obeyed if the following assumptions were to hold:

 

1) That the results of a quantum measurement are determined by unknown variables. (determinism)

 

2) Causality is restricted to the speed of light according to the special and general theories of relativity. (locality)

 

3) A measurement cannot produce more than one result at a time, fore there is a reality apart from observation. (realism or counterfactual definiteness)

 

The failure of Bell's inequality means that one or more of these premises must fail. The vast majority accepts the failure of #1 in the Copenhagen interpretation. A small group however accepts the failure of #3 in Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation. None of the physics community really accepts the failure of #2, for that would bring almost all of modern physics tumbling down, implying all the logical contradictions of time travel and more. There are a few who play around with the idea of non-locality and David Bohm's interpretation to see if anything fruitful comes of it, but success in invalidating #2 is really unthinkable. Some have explored something called decoherence which promises some advances in the area of measurement theory but it is impossible that it can change the fundamental issues.

 

The fact of the matter is that no matter how stubbornly determinists resist the failure of number 1, numbers 2 and 3 are established features of the physics world view and the physics community will not abandon them even if they have to accept that physics is not a complete description of reality. So putting all three premises together produces a clear message and that message is not the failure of determinism but only the failure of determinism if you insist on thinking that the physical description of reality, which consists only of measurable quantities and the mathematical relationships between them, is a complete description of reality.

 

 

 

God is simply the most logical explanation for everything. Take evolution, for example. It's not that evolution is scientific. Evolution is a religion, just like Creationism. Both of them, nobody was there to see it, so we don't know for sure. But the creation/God theory makes a lot more sense scientifically than the big bang. That's not necessarily addressing the full topic of belief in God, but i think it can be applied to a lot of these arguments.

 


But God is not an acceptable scientific explanation for anything. God is not observable or measurable in any way and so, as far as science is concerned, unknowable. But that which is unknowable cannot be an explanation for anything. Evolution is a scientific theory and it is a good scientific theory for it describes a process that is observable and has been observed. "Creation science" is religiously motivated rhetoric, because no matter what "scientific" studies are done in its name it searches for evidence to support its theory (as lawyers and salesment do) rather than seeking to test the theory with observations (as scientists do). But Creationism is something else entirely because it talks about a God who is a spirit and therefore outside the ream of scientific discussion, and since the physical world view is not a complete one, the truth of the theory of evolution does not invalidate Creationism.

 

Creationists are simply asking the wrong questions. Instead of asking whether evolution is correct they should be asking whether evolution is the whole story. But Christians can only ask such a question if they give up on the mythology of a world created by magic in seven days and a first man and woman created by necromancy as an animated golem of dust and a reanimation of someones body part.


Grafitti

Creationists are simply asking the wrong questions. Instead of asking whether evolution is correct they should be asking whether evolution is the whole story. But Christians can only ask such a question if they give up on the mythology of a world created by magic in seven days and a first man and woman created by necromancy as an animated golem of dust and a reanimation of someones body part.

But what creation and evolution differ on is in who was behind it, and in the process. Creation argues that man was created fully formed, and was brought to life from dust. Evolution argues that man evolved, and originated by himself from dust. Basically, gave himself life. Since spontaneous generation has been proven false, that adds the same "mythology" aura of magic to the evolutionary process, as "in the beginning of the big bang", life formed from dust.

Humans have, for the most part, removed themselves from evolution. I am not saying they don't change, but we have sort of removed ourselves from natural selection, which is one engine of evolution.Our classifications have changed and we are still adding new species to our list. They have just found some new species recently. Even so, most classifications aren't evolving at rapid rates. It would take a very long time for most groups to evovle noticeably. Also, the classification "species" still allows for some differences with in it. Small differences don't completely remove an organism from the classification. Things are still evolving, but it takes a long time for this to happen. species like bacteria are much more rapid in the process because they reproduce at much faster rates. I never said that they all evolve at the same rate. The changes mainly take place in a place with certain conditions. Like I said, the Incas, lived high up in the mountains for a very long time, so eventually there hearts and and lungs became larger because they were in that very specific environment. So those who were born with larger heats and lungs, were suited to live in those conditions and those who didn't, were less likelly to live.

And why would we have removed ourselves from evolution, if it makes us get better? Why did we all of a sudden decide that we were perfectly fine, and didn't need anything else? Why aren't secretaries evolving a third hand to type with? What about the amazon indians, who live in the jungle. wouldn't a tail be an asset? why haven't they started growing one? And just because we discover new species, doesn't mean that they weren't there before. we just never found them. Because if evolving was such a lengthy process, it's inconcievable that say, 200 years ago we didn't see them because they weren't there, and that 200 years later, they've all of a sudden evolved into this new species. why aren't there any transitional forms of it? even if they were the weaker ones, and got killed off, where are their bones? My point is, if they are evolving, there should be lots of halfway-there animals. Or at least remains of them.

mitchellmckain

Humans have, for the most part, removed themselves from evolution. I am not saying they don't change, but we have sort of removed ourselves from natural selection, which is one engine of evolution.

 

Humans have removed themselves from the evolution only in the classical sense, of indidual organisms competing with one another for survival. This however is a natural stage in the development of life on this planet. Numerous times before, like in the development of multicelular organisms, individuals band together in communities, protecting the weaker members, to initiate a new stage in evolutionary development. The protection of individuals by the community create a new source of variation of the individual and you get a specialization of the roles of the individual in the community which make communal techniques or "technology" possible. Evolution then becomes evolution of the community.

 

 

But what creation and evolution differ on is in who was behind it, and in the process.

 

NO! Scientists merely describe an observable physical process. Because of the failures of Bell's inequality scientists cannot rule out the involvement of non-observable causes, but because science is restricted to observable causes only, they cannot discuss this possibility either.

 

 

Creation argues that man was created fully formed, and was brought to life from dust.

 

Endless are the disagreements of Christians about the details of their faith and the interpretations of the Bible. The only consensus among Christians about creation is that God is ultimately responsible for the existence of life and all the living creatures on this planet. Christians inform their interpretations of the Bible by the input of science all the time. For example, it is well know that the composition of the human body is not consistent with the compostion of dust, therefore many Christians interpret the word "dust" to mean matter. Other Christians, understanding the theory of evolution, likewise make this their interpretation of the word, "formed". It is clear that the story in Genesis is not, in any way shape or form, intended to be a scientific text, but a religious text for the purpose of pointing out the role God in our existence. Genesis is obviously not a "Creation for dummies" book telling us how God created everything, but only a story written in praise of God telling us that God created everything. Just because the Bible does not mention God creating the uncountable galaxies that fill the sky above us does not mean that God did not create them, don't you think? Just because the Bible does not mention the Grand Canyon, the elements of the periodic chart, or the earth's magnetic fields, does not mean that God did not create them either.

 

 

Evolution argues that man evolved, and originated by himself from dust. Basically, gave himself life. Since spontaneous generation has been proven false, that adds the same "mythology" aura of magic to the evolutionary process, as "in the beginning of the big bang", life formed from dust.

 

NO! Evolution only describes a process of how the genetic code of a population of living organisms can change over time. Living things have the capacity to learn. They can learn new ways to live, which includes both how they behave and their actual physical structure, for evolution describes a learning process that stores the information of successful biological form in the genetic code. But learning does not occur in a vacuum and the fact that living things learn does not mean that there is no teacher. There is a difference between the theory of evolution and the atheists who uses evolution as their philosophy to explain the origin of living things. The atheists have such good propaganda going that they have convinced half of Christianity that they have science on their side, misleading these Christians to reject the validty of science.

 

The debate between evolutionary atheists and creationists is like the following argument about of the origin of tomatoes in a grocery store. The atheist says that these tomatoes are a product of chance and the natural laws of physics - appearing before us in the store by predictable mathematical laws. The creationist says that their perfect and uniform roundness is clearly a product of design, and so these tomatoes must be designed and manufactured in factory. Both are obviously nonsense. The tomatoes are the product of tomato plants. They were not designed or manufactured. They grew by themselves and we could make a time laped photophy motion picture to prove it. But what that movie fails to show are the farmers who water and nuture the plant to keep it healthy and growing. Ultimately, the tomatoes are in the grocery store because of the farmers who grew them, but the farmers did not design or manifuacture them. The fact of the matter is that design and manufacture are the process of the creation of dead things not the living, and likewise the role of God in the creation of living must be seen in a similar manner as one who nurtures, cares for, prunes, raises, shepherds, and teaches. This is acually a more suitable creation philosophy for Christianity than the magical creation of Young Earth Creationists which is a philosophy more suitable to Deists who believe that God created the world like a giant (dead) clockworks, set in motion and left it to take care of itself. So I believe instead in a God who is intimately invoved in the lives of his creatures guiding their learning and development according to His plan and desire.

 

 

Why aren't secretaries evolving a third hand to type with? What about the amazon indians, who live in the jungle. wouldn't a tail be an asset? why haven't they started growing one?

 

Because evolution is reality not wishful thinking. In stories and myths you can cook up any god, angels and demons your heart desires, but things in real life are not driven by wishes. The fact that there are secretaries, learning skills like typing and word processing, and coping with unique problems like carpal tunnel syndrome, is an example of evolution. Secretaries will evolve to deal with their unique problems not with biological development which is the old technique used in the classical evolution of the individual (far to slow to be of use to secretaries anyway), but with medical technology which is part of the process of the evolutionary development of the community.

yeh

Creationists are simply asking the wrong questions. Instead of asking whether evolution is correct they should be asking whether evolution is the whole story. But Christians can only ask such a question if they give up on the mythology of a world created by magic in seven days and a first man and woman created by necromancy as an animated golem of dust and a reanimation of someones body part.

Very nicely said, mitchellmckain. I think before you start replying to Graffiti, maybe you should ask him to define life. After reading his countless posts, I am beginning to think that his definition of life might not involve bacteria and other simpler organisms. After all, maybe all he/she wants to show is that we, humans, cannot just evolved but be created by some higher being, supposedly God. And no one can reasonably satisfy him because the only evidence that someone can produce would be fossils and Graffiti can always insist that the fossils has nothing to do with modern humans.

Grafitti

Mitchell, I don't quite agree with you on the specifics, but in the larger picture i guess we're on the same side anyways.

 

Very nicely said, mitchellmckain. I think before you start replying to Graffiti, maybe you should ask him to define life. After reading his countless posts, I am beginning to think that his definition of life might not involve bacteria and other simpler organisms. After all, maybe all he/she wants to show is that we, humans, cannot just evolved but be created by some higher being, supposedly God. And no one can reasonably satisfy him because the only evidence that someone can produce would be fossils and Graffiti can always insist that the fossils has nothing to do with modern humans.

 

Yes. As i said in my previous post, that's what i believe. And no, no one can reasonably satisfy me, because there isn't hard evidence to the contrary. NEITHER is there hard evidence for it, but that's where the individual can make his own decision as to which he feels is a better theory. Though i do include bacteria in my definition of life. Their mutations don't count, to me, because these microorganisms, for instance tuberculosis bacterium, may evolve into other strains of TB, but they won't mutate into cholera bacteria. Therefore i believe that this does not in any way prove evolution. But someone looking at it from another angle could draw different conclusions.

Since I'll be losing my cable connection for a couple weeks and will only have dialup, i won't post in this thread anymore --takes too long to load-- and i've had a chance to extensively air my views... I do like the debate, tho.


Chesso

I don't see why it's a touchy subject. You either believe in it, you don't, or you just don't really care.Personally I lean towards not believing or rather not really caring.If he does exist, he was not my direct creator. My mother and father are the ones who directly contributed to my existance, not him. I certainly don't answer to my grandparents except of course out of common courtesy or because I happen to like them.Basically the same reason why I refuse to answer to anyones claims of past misdoings on either a racial or any other effort, they did it then, not me now.But concerning the last bit I suppose most of us will have some form of biase towards a race until proven otherwise either on an individual level or otherwise, but that's just how it is.Anyway, I'm hoping it doesn't. When I finally drop off I want to be really dead not in some pit of flames or with bright lights shining in my poor eyes or however people portray it.I guess for example it's easier to believe there is life after death and what not. I don't find it easy to swallow my own belief that when I die that is it, no more just dead, but I do accept it.Oh well to each their own I guess, as long as it doesn't start cutting into and affecting other peoples lives. I don't go on and on about my beliefs on this particular topic (unless perhaps asked or provoked within reason), and I certainly don't appreciate the fools that knock on my door every week or bugging me in the middle of the street everytime I just want to pick up some bread sheesh lol.


cyborgxxi

I don't see why it's a touchy subject. You either believe in it, you don't, or you just don't really care.
Personally I lean towards not believing or rather not really caring.


Evidently you do care or you wouldn't bother posting on this thread. Anyway....

I'm glad that this thread went up because it is a good discussion. I also like that everyone is so respectful on Xisto. It really does cut down on unnecessary time. Thanks everyone, glad you could participate and I enjoyed reading your posts.

CaptainRon

This is one more *BLEEP* argument. I do not understand why people start them. There is no "supreme being" at all. God is NO BEING. Although yes he at times does take incarnations of a being, or makes empowers a being with certain powers that demonstrate his existence. He is out of space-time complex. He cannot be compared to a 'being'.But the question that remains un answered throughout is that WHERE DOES HE BELONG TO? What is beyond this space time complex? Where the F* are we? No religion correctly answers it to satisfaction.Anyhow read the book "Was God an Astronaut" and you will come across startling discoveries and probably will cease to believe in Old Testament, Mahabharata etc where God is described as accessible by humans. The Gods in these books represent a powerful alien instead... But yes what I believe is, as per Gita, we are in a space-time complex and God isn't. He created this universe for a purpose and it is solved when a human attains moksha...


Chesso

Uhhh in relation to Graffiti's post (#28):Though it is a good question, a tale or a third hand are not essential to *survive*. From what I understand, survival is basically what comes first.In order to survive we need a heart and other organs that can sustain good enough for the enviroment we live in. So if we lived in a higher climate where a larger heart and what not would make our survival that much better (or just plain possible) it makes more sense that future generations would develop it.Don't know many jungle people that needed tails to live..... lol.


Alegis

IMO

 

A person like Jesus Christ could have existed. But as a magician or sorts like that. I don't believe in these forces of a supernatural being controlling us at all. It's our power, the human mind.

 

In every age and time people pop up everywhere with these ideas which we could classify as a cult or religion. Thing is in the age of science, proof, "pix or it didn't happen" we still clutch so dearly something we can't easily refute because it happened all too long ago with no photographic or video evidence.

 

Still I find Religion has served a role well in the past; where greed and violence reigned far more than they do now - they may chop someone's arm off but lose their afterlife in heaven. Now? Principles we sabotage ourselves with, especially extremists. We need to embrace the power of the human mind. For all too many impossible and easily fall into the extremist brainwashers.

 

Oh well I had quite a drink and I'm probably writing down nonsense. Excuse me for that.


mitchellmckain

God is NO BEING. Although yes he at times does take incarnations of a being, or makes empowers a being with certain powers that demonstrate his existence. He is out of space-time complex. He cannot be compared to a 'being'.

 

Being simply means that which is. If God has no being then there is no God. Therefore your words are double talk. I also believe that God exists outside time and space, for He created time and space. But that just means that he is not confined by the mathematical relationships which bind everything in this universe together. So God is - which is to say that He has being - is a being, which is not bound by these space and time relationships. Of course He can be compared to other being for there all types of relational comparisons. God is more powerful. God knows more. God created everything else, and everything else was created by Him. I don't think that God is a finite being. I don't think that God has any inherent rational limits except those which He himself creates. But this too is a basis of comparison.

 

But the question that remains un answered throughout is that WHERE DOES HE BELONG TO?

 

"Where" is a question that only has meaning in a system of spatial relationships, so if God is outside the system of spatial relationships to which we belong then this question has no meaning. But it is a mistake to think of God as completely outside time and space unless He has no interaction with the phsical universe, and to me it is clear that He does interact. But since His interaction is not limited by spatial relationships, we say that God is everywhere. This is the traditional paradox of God's transcendance (out there) and immanence (within us and everywhere).

 

Where the F* are we?

 

So, this question only makes sense within the system of spatial relationships of our physical universe and the answer is well known: We are in the outer reaches of the Virgo Supercluster of galaxies, in the Orion arm of the Milky Way galaxy, on the third planet of the star we call Sol.

 

What is beyond this space time complex? No religion correctly answers it to satisfaction.

 

That is because this is not a question which religion asks. This is more properly a topic of metaphysics: the study of the nature of reality.

 

Everything in this universe is a form of energy. In fact, the whole universe is one single complex form of energy. This form is highly mathematical. Every bit of this energy of the universe has a quantity, position and many quantifiable properties that change in time according to definite mathematical rules. Everything in the world that we see including our own bodies are a part of this form and bound by these mathematical rules. For example, one of these rules is gravity, and if you step off the roof of a twenty story building you will accelerate towards the ground in a mathematical precise and relentless fashion, with a mathematically calculable collison when you reach the ground.

 

But these mathematical rules, position and quantity are not absolute. This mathematically defined form of the universe does have limits. As physics studied the fundamental structures of energy of which everything is composed - the elementary particles, it discovered something called the uncertainty principle. These particles have irreducable uncertainties in their mathematical properties. Even the quantity of their energy is uncertain during short periods of time according to dE x dt ~ 6.626x10^27 Js. This is an extremely small uncertainty but it is definitely there and it is definitely irreducible.

 

There are events which force the uncertainties of particle's measurable quantities to collapse into a definite measure, which in physics is refered to as measurement events or wave collapse. And it has been proven that the results of these events have no cause within the range of phenomena that is an acceptable subject of study in physics. This either means that these results have no cause at all or that the physical world view constructed from what is measurable and objectively observable is not complete. For the non-physicist it comes as no great surprise that there is more to the world than what can be measured, but for the physicists it was quite a shock.

 

In any case this does suggest that there is being which is outside this mathematical construction which we call the physical universe, and by abstract extention there is no reason we cannot think of this being as consisting of forms of energy which are simply not a part of the mathematical relationships of our physical universe. I envision a "sea" of relatively formless energy "in" which such things as our universe "floats" but without (and this is the hard part) spatial or temporal relationships. Other beings that would be found there are any of those things which we think exist but which we call "spiritual" since they do not seem to be objectively observable.

 

Anyhow read the book "Was God an Astronaut" and you will come across startling discoveries and probably will cease to believe in Old Testament, Mahabharata etc where God is described as accessible by humans. The Gods in these books represent a powerful alien instead... But yes what I believe is, as per Gita, we are in a space-time complex and God isn't. He created this universe for a purpose and it is solved when a human attains moksha...

 

I am familiar with the content of this book and I have come to no such conclusions. God may be intellectually inaccessible to human reason and beyond our definitons and manipulations, but God created this universe as a womb of life. God created life as something which He could have an intimate relationship with as nuturer, cultivator, shepherd, teacher and parent. If we have no access to God, nevertheless God has access to us, and He is a giver of gifts which we can receive if we open to receive them. For as living beings we are finite with infinite potentiality as the perfect mirror image of God's infinite actuality, and thus we were made for an eternal relationship with Him. And so I must fervently disagree with your idea of our purpose because our purpose is eternal and any achievement we make with His aid whether you call it salvation, sanctification, enlightenment, or moksha, it is only one step on a neverending path.

 

--------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------

 

I don't believe in these forces of a supernatural being controlling us at all. It's our power, the human mind.

 

On the first thing you say, we can agree. Relationship and control are mutually exclusive concepts. If God desired control He would have designed us as He did the angels to be and do exactly no more and no less that what we were designed to be and do. But the human mind is simply our true physical being which resides within our bodies and which dies when the body dies. It is our spirit, created by the exercise of freewill in the choices we make, which exists outside the time and space of the physical universe and which continues to exist eternally. Our freewill lies at the heart of the process which distinguishes living organisms from inanimate objects. Life and freewill are quantitative, which means that not all living things are equally alive, and even human beings can be more alive or less so, although in this sense it is more commonly called consciousness even though it is really the same thing. And that is where our freewill has a catch, because not all choices are equal. Many choices may simply be a matter of our own uniqueness but some are choices which decide whether we attain a greater life (and consciousness) or whether we spiral down into a death of habit and stagnation.

 

In every age and time people pop up everywhere with these ideas which we could classify as a cult or religion. Thing is in the age of science, proof, "pix or it didn't happen" we still clutch so dearly something we can't easily refute because it happened all too long ago with no photographic or video evidence.

 

I am a physicist, but I do not belong to this cult which thinks that science has all the answers and solutions to the human condition. Science is about only what is objectively observable, but life is more that that. This cult in the forms of nazism and communism nearly destroyed the world, so I surely hope that most people are wise enough to avoid going down that dead end again. If you really want to look to the future and avoid the failures of the past then I would suggest that instead of dismissing and condemning the opinions of others that you instead attempt to love and appreciate people of every culture and religion and learn what they have to teach you first.

 

Proof is a trap and a delusion. Proof only exists in a very few areas of knowledge like mathematics. And irony of ironies, one of the few things that you can prove, is that you cannot prove that mathematics is consistent. Certainty is a crutch for small children. There are too many things in life which are too important in which the uncertainty is irreducible. Love is one of these things. Love only exists because you believe in it, not the other way around. Therefore to grow up we must leave the crutch of certainty behind and learn to make leaps of faith, which simply means that we must make our own choices in regards to some of these uncertainties in life and live according to our choices.

 

Still I find Religion has served a role well in the past; where greed and violence reigned far more than they do now - they may chop someone's arm off but lose their afterlife in heaven. Now? Principles we sabotage ourselves with, especially extremists. We need to embrace the power of the human mind. For all too many impossible and easily fall into the extremist brainwashers.

 

These extremists are just people like you. They have failed to love and appreciate people of other cultures and religions. They are so wrapped up in their own point of view that they cannot learn from anyone else, they can only destroy them. If you think that the solution is to eliminate the different ways that people think then you are exactly like them, and it is you who are stuck in the past and cannot create a future. Unity is not uniformity. Unity can only be achieved if everyone embraces the beauty of diversity.

CaptainRon

Hey mitchellmckain sorry but you sound so frustrated of life... you surely need a God to make you happy

 

 

 

Uh well, so you say that God has physical existence? No dear, I think he is no where close to Physical existence. If God were so simple (to have knowledge and intelligence then he wouldn't be God but a higher superset of Human being). I understand your mathematical universe concept and my religion (like all other Dharmic religions) also propagates the fact that this world is nothing but "Maya" or a false illusion. Well you argue that God has to have some connection with us in the space-time complex. To that, I think you know already that most electromagnetic waves do not exist purely in the space time complex. For example Light has a particle nature that makes it present in the Space-time complex and it has a Wave nature that does not interact with the space-time complex. This is what was illustrated by Einstein's theory of relativity. Light has a constant speed regardless of its relation with any other moving object. In our case, it's our mind that interacts with the electromagnets to a great degree. Scientists studying our brain are baffled by it's construction. Unlike previous theory that all memories are equally distributed in the neural networks in our brain, it has been observed that the brain follows the holographic model. The outcome may possibly be that it's our brain that is the point of contact between our God and us.

 

The holographic model can also explain a lot of unexplained "paranormal" phenomenon. But still talking about God, he is not definable atleast as of now when we lack proper knowledge of this universe.

 

 

 

As about the theory of "Was God an Astronaut" it is very much evident after researching on the facts mentioned in the book that Gods mentioned in Old Testament, Mahabharata and Epic of Gilgamesh were indeed Alien species.

 

 

 

All the three books mentioned above talk of irrefutably similar stories and even similar characters, and all of them talk of interacting with Heavenly Gods who came down in flying chariots and gave them weapons to defeat others. God would never do that. Even in Mahabharata, the Pandavas are given a weapon called the Brahmastra by the heavenly Gods. Brahmastra was an ancient Nuclear Weapon. Anyway I wont argue on this because it depends on the belief of the people.


Chesso

You'd have to wonder how something exists that has that kind of power and potential eh.


mitchellmckain

Hey mitchellmckain sorry but you sound so frustrated of life... you surely need a God to make you happy

 

Why do you say that? What did I say that sounds fustrated. Is there any basis to your judgement of me?

 

As living beings we have the innate capacity to become more than we are. That is our infinite potential. But because we are finite beings with finite knowledge we are blind to our own possibilities and blind to the full consequences of our choices. God is the parent of all life. God raises life up to realize its greater potentialities. As an infinite being with infinite knowlege, God has the knowledge that we lack. So, I am saying that you need God to realize your potential.

 

Uh well, so you say that God has physical existence? No dear, I think he is no where close to Physical existence.

 

I did not say that. There is a difference between physical existence and spiritual existence. I explained the difference. If you disagree with my explanation please explain why.

 

If God were so simple (to have knowledge and intelligence then he wouldn't be God but a higher superset of Human being).

 

God is infinite, and we are finite. Therefore God is not simply higher but categorically different. Having knowledge and intellegence are not limitations. Not having intellegence or not having knowledge would be a limitation. If God has such limitations then these limitations would require an explanation. But if God is without limit then there are no limitations to explain.

 

I understand your mathematical universe concept and my religion (like all other Dharmic religions) also propagates the fact that this world is nothing but "Maya" or a false illusion.

 

If the world is nothing but illusion, then your active participation in it is a willful escape from reality. So, if you truly believe this, then why do you humor your delusions? Why do you participate in nonsense?

 

Well you argue that God has to have some connection with us in the space-time complex.

 

No I do not argue any such thing. God does not require any connection with us. I simply argued that God created us for a purpose. I believe that purpose is for a relationship with us.

 

 

To that, I think you know already that most electromagnetic waves do not exist purely in the space time complex. For example Light has a particle nature that makes it present in the Space-time complex and it has a Wave nature that does not interact with the space-time complex.

 

I do not know any such thing. As a physicist I know that we represent light as a mathematical construct called a wave function. And we have mathematical equations that describe how these wave functions change with time in perfect agreement with all of our measurements and objective observations. Describing light as a particle or a wave are just techniques used to visualize the nature of light in different limited circumstances. Clearly light is neither of these visualizations, because the behavior is inconsistent with them in different circumstances. The physical description of light as the wave function is perfectly consistent and is defined completely within the space-time structure of the physical universe.

 

This is what was illustrated by Einstein's theory of relativity. Light has a constant speed regardless of its relation with any other moving object.

 

What you are refering to is the a result of the Minkowsky structure of space-time. Everything massless has a velocity with a magnitude of about 2.997x10^8 m/s relative to all things with mass no matter what the velocity of that thing with mass is. All things with mass have velocities with magnitudes less than 2.997x10^8 m/s relative to all other things with mass. These facts are all a part of the mathematical relationships between everything which is objectively observable and measurable.

 

In our case, it's our mind that interacts with the electromagnets to a great degree. Scientists studying our brain are baffled by it's construction. Unlike previous theory that all memories are equally distributed in the neural networks in our brain, it has been observed that the brain follows the holographic model.

 

Yes I am quite aware of the holographic model. In fact this is one of the significant pieces of evidence that brain is nothing like a computer or a machine that controls our actions. Cases of brain damage has shown that although specific areas of the brain are normally assigned specific functions, these functions can be reassigned to different locations of the brain when there is damage. Thus in most of the brain, it is, in fact, only the total amount of damage which contributes to impairment. This is entirely consistent with the idea that the human mind is a living organism in the information flows within the brain, which is adaptable to changes in its evironment (the brain).

 

I am exceeding the maximum number of quotes so from here it is the old fashioned way.

 

"The outcome may possibly be that it's our brain that is the point of contact between our God and us. The holographic model can also explain a lot of unexplained 'paranormal' phenomenon. "

 

But it is clear that God is not objectively observable or measureable - not physical as you say. Therefore to understand the contact between physical beings and God, you must explain how there can be connection between the physical (consisting of this mathematical description of everything measurable and objectively observable) and things which are not physical.

 

"But still talking about God, he is not definable atleast as of now when we lack proper knowledge of this universe."

 

Now that is an odd thing for you to say. If God is outside the space and time which is part of the structure of this universe, then how will "proper knowledge of this universe" provide a means to define God?

 

"As about the theory of 'Was God an Astronaut' it is very much evident after researching on the facts mentioned in the book that Gods mentioned in Old Testament, Mahabharata and Epic of Gilgamesh were indeed Alien species."

 

But no such thing is evident to me. What is evident to me is that contact with alien beings lacks the evidence consistent with physical phenomena and eludes objective observation and measurement just as paranormal and religious experiences do, which means they all lack that which is characteristic of everything in the physical description of reality. Giving different names to spiritual beings (calling them alien species) and finding reasons to ridicule the religious texts of other peoples is a typical behavior found in religious groups.

 

"All the three books mentioned above talk of irrefutably similar stories and even similar characters, and all of them talk of interacting with Heavenly Gods who came down in flying chariots and gave them weapons to defeat others. God would never do that. Even in Mahabharata, the Pandavas are given a weapon called the Brahmastra by the heavenly Gods. Brahmastra was an ancient Nuclear Weapon. "

 

Well I certainly agree that God would not do any such thing. However since I see no such claim as this in the Old testament, I reject your argument in this regard.

 

 

"Anyway I wont argue on this because it depends on the belief of the people."

 

Good. I think that is a productive attitude. I never presumed that you acknowledged any authority in the Old Testament and I have not made a single reference to it contents, other than the mention of angels, which was only an example anyway.



Pages :-

Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5
Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Page 10


VIEW DESKTOP VERSION REGISTERGET FREE HOSTING

Xisto.com offers Free Web Hosting to its Members for their participation in this Community. We moderate all content posted here but we cannot warrant full correctness of all content. While using this site, you agree to have read and accepted our terms of use, cookie and privacy policy. Copyright 2001-2019 by Xisto Corporation. All Rights Reserved.