Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
taniwha

Is God All In The Mind?

2,046 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

psyche101

These are fascinating hypothesises, I totally agree. But they are not providing answers or giving us any clue as to the ultimate origin. That the big bang is not the 'beginning' so to speak but a continuation or the evolution of some other phenomenon I can accept, given sufficiant evidence (which there is not), but even a Multiverse, extra dimensions or white holes have to originate from somehwere. You can say that, either what we are experiencing as living beings has meaning and purpose, or you can believe that in the end, we amount to nothing and that we are living pointless lives in a pointless world.

The part I feel most religious/spiritually oriented people are missing here is the word "Hypothesis" Religion isn't one, it's a man made construct, a story, a tall tale. The Big Bang has mountains of data behind it, as does string leading to Multiverses and eternal inflation. This is real information, gathered data, and information coming from science to date has proven this story wrong.

We do not amount to nothing!! Gracious me lad!! We have this marvelous brain to develop for the best part of 100 years!!! We have other brains to share that with, it is a crying shame that this knowledge will end when we die, but what a privilege to be here and using it right now!!!!!

As I understand dimensional theory, there are more "dimensions" than you can count outside of normal space, not to be confused with the additional dimensions string predicts for this universe, these dimensions are largely uninhabitable, but a clash between two favourable dimensions may have sparked the big bang. However, as I stated earlier, I favour eternal inflation, Alan Guth provides very convincing and satisfying models. Much more so than the verbal assurances of religion.

I've reak books (The Elegant Universe, The Fabric Of The Cosmos and The Hidden Reality) by Brian Greene and he does not make any claim about the origin of it all. Nor does he promotes Atheism as a worlview for the masses. He admits he does not know.That we may actually never know. It's also interesting that you are refering to Greene, as well as being a well-known string physicist, the man also hold philosophy in high regard. :)

How can you have read fabric of the cosmos and not be aware of that which I state above? That is where I learned that.

He was sincere when explaining his work in string theory, an ambitious attempt to unite the clashing domains of gravity and quantum physics. Letterman listened intently, and then asked,“So, how is my life better for this?” Greene responded earnestly that the theory has the potential to peer back before the Big Bang and explain how the universe began.“I think that would really alert us to our own place in the cosmos in a deep way.”

LINK

In 2012, Peiris and Johnson teamed up with Anthony Aguirre and Max Wainwright — both physicists at the University of California, Santa Cruz — to build a simulated multiverse with only two bubbles. They studied what happened after the bubbles collided to determine what an observer would see. The team concluded that a collision of two bubble universes would appear to us as a disk on the CMB with a distinctive temperature profile.

LINK

''Greene has stated that he sees science as incompatible with literalist interpretations of religion.[12] He has argued that "But if you don’t view God as the reservoir of temporary answers to issues we haven’t solved scientifically, but rather as some overarching structure within which science takes place, and if that makes you happy and satisfied, so be it. I don’t see the need for that; others do."[12] He has also stated that there is much in the "new atheism" which resonates with him because he personally does not feel the need for religious explanation. However, he is uncertain of its efficacy as a strategy for spreading a scientific worldview.[12]''

Source: https://en.wikipedia...ki/Brian_Greene

Nicely said! but then again, Greene is not one who is lost for words at any point.

I agree with that very much, Religion was the precursor to science, I already said the very same myself, if one is insistent in remaining there, that is their problem, if you want to learn, science will give you the answers.

The concept of an 'overarching structure' is pretty much how I came see it. To me, God is All, God is the Universe. The Energy of which all things are made, and the governing dymanics from which all things are able to operate. The more we can learn about our metaphyscial progenitor, using science or other methods, such mysticism and spiritual experiences, the better.

He mentions that the structure is to contain question we cannot answer, and they reside there until better information comes along, like Adam's rib and evolution. He is not saying there is a higher power. To be honest, this paragraph seems one step short of admitting that God does not exist, you just call nature God. Science shows us that mysticism is BS, and it's not got anything good to say about spiritual experiences either, all it says, if that's what floats your boat, knock yourself out, but whenever you are ready, a bit of hard work will reveal the actual answer you seek.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

When you begin a comment by calling something someone holds very dear to their hearts a "sham", are you really surprised that people don't take too kindly to it? Think about it, imagine if you were walking down the street arm in arm with your wife and children, and someone who'd gone through a bad divorce a while back turns to you and declares that your love is a "sham" and that you need to "open your eyes", that in the modern world, things like love have become "redundant", I'd be surprised if you didn't take a swing at him for being so rude to you.

That quote does not contain the word "sham"

As such, how is the response not emotional? Does that not indicate where the veracity of religion comes from?

See that is where facts come in, if someone did that to me, and my life was all rosy, I would laugh him off and say, You got it wrong buddy!". Maybe you should have opened your eyes a bit earlier?

I guess that is why people are really upset, they do not have the faith to brush of such comment based on something tangible they can offer to prove what they say. The angle I come from does have the answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranoid Android

That quote does not contain the word "sham"

The very first sentence of your post declared religion a sham! I didn't quote the whole thing because I only needed that short sentence to make my point.

As such, how is the response not emotional? Does that not indicate where the veracity of religion comes from?

See that is where facts come in, if someone did that to me, and my life was all rosy, I would laugh him off and say, You got it wrong buddy!". Maybe you should have opened your eyes a bit earlier?

I guess that is why people are really upset, they do not have the faith to brush of such comment based on something tangible they can offer to prove what they say. The angle I come from does have the answers.

And if you'll note, I've never gotten angry with you over your comments. My faith is strong enough to put it aside. All I'm saying is that what you do say does come off as insulting to someone's core, the very heart of who they are. Whether I choose to take offence at it or not is an entirely different question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

The only one upset here seems to be you.

Not what I am getting from your posts.......

Where did I display anything that sounded "upset" diddums?

You're one of the most hysterical Atheists I've ever encountered.

You say that everytime you disagree with me, nothing new there. And yet, you preach tolerance, which is demonstrably laughable.

You repeat yourself constantly in boring detail, and freakout at any push back.

If the detail is too much for you, just skip over it, and talk to a poster with the same mindset so y may pat each other on the back all day.

Where did I "freak out"?? LOL, you are so full of crap!!!!!

Your are not here to debate, because all you really do is pontificate about how the religious are all fools and you are the self-appointed guiding light of reason, deeply flawed and deeply disturbed reason, that is.

The subject matter is obviously too emotionally draining for you to recognize the technical aspects, I never said religious people are fools, you take it that way because I call the leaders underhanded, and you do not want to admit you may have been taken in by a steaming hh8ge pile of BS to make someone else's life better.

Had you read those long boring detailed posts that you assumed to be repeats, you would have picked up on not only that, but the fact that I have said many times that people who have lived their entire lives should be left to die in peace, and to make this world a better place, we need to focus on better teaching methods for future generations.

You must be the kind that interrupts and talks over others in public.

In fact I am not, and have had many people comment on my good manner, I always use my pleases and thank you's. But that shows how little you understand of a non theistic view, and feel you have the moral high ground - a false and default position for many religious people. Religion does indeed seem to give many people an inflated sense of self importance.

And yet they preach tolerance!!! How hypocritical!!

Afterall, you are right an they are wrong.

Nope, again you have not read the posts at all have you? I am an observer reporting what is out there, nothing to do with me personally. I happen to find that solid data trumps imagination, nothing wrong with that.

Well, that's how you see it. You have no empathy or sympathy for believers, are rude, antagonistic and insulting and you are actively preaching and promoting your convictions on this site in a way the religious are forbidden to do.

It does not matter what I see, it matters what data says and can be proven to be real.

I am preaching nothing, I never told anyone to become atheist at all. Religion blinds you to two choices. But plenty of people try to tell me heaven is real, but cannot tell me anything more than "It's just so" can they? And if it were any subject other than religion, that answer would not be good enough for you either.

Why do they reply to your posts? It's kind of like having a Tasmanian Devil in a cage that they can poke with a stick every now and then. Good fun.

I do not think people are quite as twisted as you are as a whole to be frank. I think some people are genuine, and a couple even get where I am coming from, but ignorance does tend to create insult!! Happens every time someone has no substance to add to a debate. Some people are indeed genuine, and wonder why I would think this way, and that is a good thing. Everyone should peek outside of their box from time to time.

Or, they find you curiously facinating, or maybe they like you, everything not withstanding.

Well I hope to find like minded people who are capable of thinking beyond imaginary realms, it would be so much more productive to discuss the real world without insisting imaginary elements are part of it. Lets face it, you are just wasting time here to pick on someone that is not ever going to come around to believe something you cannot prove, and has evidence to back their views. It is shame, because although incredibly arrogant, you seem a half decent bloke, and have a good brain in your head. If you could just get over having to have the final say and be right, and bother to delve into aspects of discussion, it would sure be a pleasure to hear your realistic thoughts on how one might prove Heaven to be real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

The very first sentence of your post declared religion a sham! I didn't quote the whole thing because I only needed that short sentence to make my point.

May I request that you quote the post you referenced to save confusion in future.

And if you'll note, I've never gotten angry with you over your comments. My faith is strong enough to put it aside. All I'm saying is that what you do say does come off as insulting to someone's core, the very heart of who they are. Whether I choose to take offence at it or not is an entirely different question.

Ohh. I have made you more than frustrated before, but more referring to Hammerclaw, who is very angry that I challenge a theistic approach. There is a huge difference in your posting as to when we discuss footy as opposed to religion, the impression I get is somewhat angry, if that is wrong, I apologise, but surely you can see others are indeed not happy for me to ask these questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

First, religions aren' t shams. They are human responses to human needs. They are a codifed/regulated form of human spirituality and belief. They WORK effectively and powerfully to improve the human condition. Which explains their endurance over the last100000 years or so..

​Absolute nonsense. Religion does not make a good person, a good person makes a good person. It is offensive to suggest one needs God to be a decent human being!! You guys started it!!

Of course people get angry when you challenge their beliefs. You are challenging the very basis of their existence. Try challenging a woman's belief that she has a right to an abortion or a gay persons belief that their alignment is "normal" and you will see them get angry, too.

Are they right though to be angry? Is it the right of someone to yell red faced at a young person who was raped and carries a deformed child? Is it right to behead someone for being gay? No. You need to find out the facts, that is what I feel I am trying to do.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

Oh, don't worry. No one takes you serious. :w00t:

Seriously? Thats a shame, I take everyone but you seriously!! :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranoid Android

May I request that you quote the post you referenced to save confusion in future.

I would have thought you knew your own post well enough to know what you wrote, but in the future I will be more specific :tu:

Ohh. I have made you more than frustrated before, but more referring to Hammerclaw, who is very angry that I challenge a theistic approach. There is a huge difference in your posting as to when we discuss footy as opposed to religion, the impression I get is somewhat angry, if that is wrong, I apologise, but surely you can see others are indeed not happy for me to ask these questions.

And I often interpret your posts as angry, I guess it's just the nature of beliefs. When we're talking about footy, it's just a game. When we talk about deeply held beliefs it is much more personal, and you can't expect the same level of emotional engagement, or the interpreted words that come from there. Heck, when it comes to State of Origin I'll sledge Third Man Thaiday every time, and you won't interpret that as an insult, it's just sledging, banter between two supporters of two teams with a long and storied rivalry. Try the same thing with deities and it's so much more personal.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits

PA

What I get from reading your comments here recently is that while you answer No! to the topic question, Is God all in the mind?, that the basis for this is faith. So, it would seem fair to venture that your answer to a related question, "Are our beliefs about God all in the mind? might be Yes.

For example, you mentioned the feeding of the 5000 as a miracle. In other words, you discern in a natural and historical event, that some people had a meal together, the hand of God, that what food was available could not have fed so many people naturally.

And yet we can see over the four canonical Gospels the development of this interpretation of the event. There is no support in Mark for supernatural causation. He says only what food was available to event staff, and jumps from their presentation of a sharing patomime directly to gathering up the leftovers, with no depiction of what intervened. In particular, no miracle claim is made (as is typical of Mark which in all cases leaves open naturalistic explanations of everything it depicts, even the Resurrection if we assume that we have no original Mark after 16:8, or as I suspect, possibly 16: 9).

In contrast, John depicts Jesus directly and personally stretching the supplies to feed the crowd. There is no getting around that if what John says is true, then Jesus managed to operate outside the conservation of matter and energy. The act of creation, in other words.

Cautioning in advance that the issue is not whether the four accounts can be "harmonized," it is plain that supernatural or preternatural causation is not the only interpretation of the underlying historical event (assuming that something like that happened). The miraculous conclusion cannot be laid to the anthology which is our text, but must be attributed to the mind of the reader. Faith plays two roles here: that what John reports is possible at all in time and space, and that Mark left something out of its report, rather than that John added something new to its.

So we find ourselves back at the OP. He saw a cloud. That he discerned the hand of God is all in the mind. Other minds notice that people see many things in clouds that are not really there, and some suspect that the OP's experience is more like that than a real encounter with an angel of God morphing into a Christian emblem. The difference in interpretation cannot be impersonally resolved because the interpretation, the very act of interpetation, is all in the mind - it is the mind, at work. The cloud isn't, and if God exists in the Abrahamic fashion then he isn't, but everything that anybody cares to say about how one might relate to the other is all in the mind.

I suppose the good news is that that places the question of God outside the scope of science, probably permanently, independently of any future progress of science, and irreversibly (so much for the antittheist fantasy of "God of the gaps" as an origin-of-belief narrative). The bad news is that nobody has much hope of ever persuading anybody else, not even the party who is factually correct, unless a miracle occurs.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather

Why do you think they are famous?

Because their minds are better than most. That is their claim to fame.

No it's not their work is. People can be good scientists and have average brains. Hardwork and presistance usually gets people farther than say IQ. People are famous for lots of reasons. I have learned never to trust famous people actually. Generally fame is a sell to the public ;)

That is right, because spirituality is superstition, it's like Science investigating Winnie The Pooh or Leprechauns.

Incorrect. Winnie the Pooh is not a superstition he is a cartoon cahracter and upon scientific investigation this will be found to be true, and even more incorrect Leprechauns are falsifiable and may actually have a base in reality. Most likely microcephlects or island dwarfism. The existance of God is not falsifiable and there for is not a scientific question. It can however be examined from a more legal way of sifting through evidence that does not have the restrictions good science does. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

So is claiming there is no God ;)

Everything should be if claimed as real.

In science, yes absolutely.

You mean man made God up so only man can direct Gods existence don't you?

No I dont. And man did not make God up. God is an exsperince rooted into our evolution and generally associated with altered states of conciousness though it dosnt have to be. See the paper I linked to earlier. There has been a lot made up about God though.

Science overrides philosophy too. It does not ponder the questions, it drill down into them.

Indeed. Philosophy that is testable can be investigated by science. A good example is the philosophy of materialism. The existance of God cannot be investigated though there might be some traces hanging about. Ther are some things we can look for if the universe is indeed created by an intelligence.

Edited by White Crane Feather
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather

I would say that is why they do not take that final step, they say there is no need for God to exist for everything in the Universe, and the Universe itself to exist, it says God is redundant. We do not need him to explain things anymore, the tale of creating the heavens and the earth is wrong, we have better information. We can stop making stuff up, and learn by way of observation.

Except that observations pretty much fit what might be expected form a universe created by an intelligence. I'm not even a creationist but they have a case if you look close enough. But no. A creator God is not needed for the universe that we see to exist, but those very principals also show us that a God like being or beings is likely to exist possibly even must. I'm going to say this again so you might be inspired to actually look it up. There has been a long discussion about it and I have linked to a very good source. Gods and God concepts are not made up. They are a part of human experience and psycological evolution. They don't have to be real entities, but they certainly are not made up.

LOL, that is such poppycock!!

What ? you don't think a supreme being ( If it existed) could not make a decision like that?

No, Science just does what it does, we do not direct it, natural processes do. God has no say there, science is brutally honest and will kill God if God challenges it. God is man made, not the omnipotent being man has brainwashed generations to think he is.

Sigh...... God is not man made and that has been prooven with academic standards. Yes we do direct science. I think you are confusing natural processes with science. You don't know what God has a say in or if it even exists. You are shooting blanks in the dark at and invisible beryl full of minows while not being able to hit a bullet with the broad side of a barn. The basic truth is that if God is what religions say it is, then God decides what evidence is available to us. I certainly don't beleive in that kind of God, but that dosnt matter. This is one of the reasons the question is not falsifiable and therefore is not a scientific question.

And yet the scientist are the ones putting God out of a Job. The religious protest this all day long, but cannot refute a single fact. Science however just keeps growing it's knowledge each and every second.

Would you mind telling me what facts there are about the existance of a God? ;)

That is not scientific thinking, that is an appeal to authority, which is why you posted so many when I was happy to provide a few simple and illustrative examples. However, lets actually have a look at those examples shall we? I wont be wasting my time with every name on that list so I shall pick the first two.

Hahaha ok bro. You are shooting yourself in the foot here. It was you who started naming off names because they confirm your bias that intelligent people are atheist and it was you who are appealing to their authority as if they are an authority on the existance of God. They are not even philosophers, but are makeing philisophical assertions. This is why the really smart ones only pick on the obvious incorrectness of certain myths. You might want to look at my post a little closer I was simply mimicking your ilkogical assertions to show you "I can do it too". I don't think for a second that Somones intellectual prowess is diminished or heightened by their philisophical or spiritual beleifs. It's illogical to even think such a think. I was just trying to demonstrate how silly it is by showing how many good scientists are religous. I in no way think this Validates religous beleifs just as I don't think somone like Hawkins validates his philosophical belifs

Mate, I do feel you need to look a bit deeper before offering these sacrificial cows. These men are not the believers in God that you make them out to be.

Not only that, but I feel it is a bit underhanded of you to mostly pick names that were pioneers, the men who took us out of the shadows of religion, and took the first steps that freed these shackles of superstition, the men you speak of were brought up to completely believe that Adam and Eve were our ancestors, and our greatest grandmother was made from grandads rib.

I think what you call "philosophy is actually just asking people to step back, and accept silly excuses when the tall tale of a God goes awry.

I'm asking no such thing. You see now that you are makeing my point about how illogical it is to tie philosophy with the people behind good science. I was never atempting to validate beleifs on accomplishments of the individual. That's what you were doing. :(

I am not surprised one bit, you have invested a great deal of your life and your families life into believing we have spirits inside of us that carry in when we are dead. You are not even going to consider that you might be wrong for some ADD anonymous poster on the Internet. This is that high ground that religious people stand upon, which I feel is rather falsifiable. Which I find somewhat amusing, particular when you feel religious people have some sort of secret knowledge. They do not, they have faith, it is not the same thing as knowledge at all.

You are completely wrong. I question everything, I look at the evidence and i make a decision. I consider the possibility that I am wrong all the time. Luckily I consider the possability that everyone else is also. fortunatly I'm bound by calling it how I see it. I do not feel that religous people have secret knowledge. Im not religous. Quit the oposite. I feel spiritual exsperience is available to everyone and I don't feel any particular methos has it right or knows the mind of God. I don't even think God is omnipotent or omniscient though it might be, but that is a very unsettling isea

Science is not philosophical, it gets right to the point.

Noit is not. And the existance of creator God/gods is a philosophical question. Science dosnt even touch it. Science investigates physical phenominon.

What philosophy? As far as I know, they only philosophy atheists have is to share factual knowledge and rationalise superstition. And I do not know if that can be described as "philosophy".

Hard atheism is a philosophy, soft atheism is very reasonable. Anybody makeing hard assertions about the non existance of God is makeing a philisophical point. Let's take Suskind as an example. He is a soft athiest just looking for what the evidence reveals and not worrying about what is beyond it. Then somone like Dawkins that makes a living off of trying to prove a negative.

What is wrong with a stated principle?

What problems are you speaking of? Surely not the elusive nature of imagination? Science allows God to exist, it is just that there is no reason for him to exist. As such, God is redundant.

Logical positivism will ways turn up a wrong answer.

I'm not sure if science allows for God to exist or not. I think a theist would tell you God allows for science to exist. I'm not so sure about that either, and just because you cannot see a reason for God to exist dosnt mean that there isn't one. In fact if you actually think a God is possible the chances are that it does indeed exist. Evolutiin and eternity is likely to produce evolved beings far far beyond our comprehension both in scope and temporal being.

All that sounds like is "I have no answers, so do not ask me, I will refer you to God" which is not an answer, it is avoiding the question. Science has proven the written word of God to be wrong, yet you claim now that the written word is proven wrong, you shift position to a spiritual realm.No doubt should science prove that 100% to be bunkum, religious people will have some other poor excuse. If you do not have an answer, "God will provide" does not suffice, you need to be able to accept the very fact that you have no answer, but wish to hold onto your faith. To be religious is to refuse to be brutally honest with yourself when the hard questions come up. Heck, even when the easy ones like the veracity of the Bible come up.

I don't have faith other than a basic faith in myself. I don't know who you are preaching to. I don't accept any word of God like a Christian. I am a hard agnostic theist. This means i am certain their is something like a God, but I have no clue as to its ultimate nature. I do not have faith. My opinions are based off of logic and observation, and my certainty is based off of personal wittiness.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather

No, you are native American and have vision quests and all that, but we were discussing the Abrahamic traditions. And that seems to me the be what the OP is referring to. Your native beliefs if anything buck religion as far as I can see.

In reality they are all a little religion with different narritives often more fantastic than abrahamic narritives but that's just the mythology taboos and such. there is a core concept in traditional spiritual practices that is built upon the direct experience of the spirit world. But these methods and beleifs are not ridged like middle eastern oriented beleifs. A Native American spiritual person might beleive his people were created by Ant people and yours by deer people. Advanced dogmas are not really present. The spirits ( either within or outside of us) are perceived in ways that we can understand. I once me an African shaman here on UM and we had a very interesting discussion about a local African God that he met personally rumbling through the forest complete with a hat and a cigar. We could have the conversation knowing we didn't doubt each other and there is a cross cultural understanding of shamanic exsperince and the fluid nature of interacting with the..... well..... The other places. Native Americans originally accepted the abrahamic God as the God of the white people, but after it was being forced down their throats even by gun point, they started to think it might be a devil. But if course this is the actions of people.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

We might awaken naked, young and in the flesh on the banks of an endless winding river. If we die, we again are resurrected at some point on that river. Phillip Jose Farmer To Your Scattered Bodies Go.

Ah I did love the entire riverworld series although the final ending was a bit of a let down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

​Absolute nonsense. Religion does not make a good person, a good person makes a good person. It is offensive to suggest one needs God to be a decent human being!! You guys started it!!

Are they right though to be angry? Is it the right of someone to yell red faced at a young person who was raped and carries a deformed child? Is it right to behead someone for being gay? No. You need to find out the facts, that is what I feel I am trying to do.

UH? Where did I say anything about good people? You aren't responding to my post but to some concept of your own. Religions are organised responses to human needs and their very effective results in meeting those needs is the reason religions thrive and endure, and have done since humans evolved self award sapience. There is a temple in Turkey 10000 years old where people worshipped for millennia, gradually changing their gods, beliefs and religions, as their needs changed from hunter gatherers to city dwellers. I did not say one needs god to be good. But humans seem to need gods.

Right? what does right mean? They are understandably angry at having their most important beliefs criticised. A religious person gets angry for the same reason. An attack on their belief is the same as an attack on a persons belief in their right to control their own body or that their own sexuality is normal. Right'' or wrong doesn't enter into it. In each case a belief which forms the basis of a world view is being attacked. Arguably there is no factual/logical right or wrong answer to any of those questions. There is only a belief.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

​Absolute nonsense. Religion does not make a good person, a good person makes a good person. It is offensive to suggest one needs God to be a decent human being!! You guys started it!!

Are they right though to be angry? Is it the right of someone to yell red faced at a young person who was raped and carries a deformed child? Is it right to behead someone for being gay? No. You need to find out the facts, that is what I feel I am trying to do.

to you and i this is not right. but, the Muslims are brought up thinking that it is not only right but ordained by Allah. they think their savings souls. just like christian think when they try to convert someone.

Edited by danielost
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens

So you don't recall anyone wondering aloud why it apparently seems so many people "prefer" (yes, that is the word used) ancient superstition to modern science? That certainly suggests taking one over the other as if they are exclusive.

Sorry PA, you guys had posted while I was putting together that last post. Although psyche has said specific things I agree with (heaven and miracles are for the most part unscientific), I can see when taken as a whole his posts do assert exclusivity. I can agree with some things he's said but not things like arguing without qualification, 'most smart people don't believe in God' and such.

When it comes to the existence of God and the afterlife, these things cannot be measured by science. They are a belief about what happens to the incorporeal spirit when we die (if such incorporeal spirit even exists). As such, science cannot measure this at all. Not at all.

The only reason that science cannot measure it is because there is no evidence, which to some suggests questions why then people believe in it. Incorporeal things could be studied by science potentially if there was something to examine; science hasn't walled off 'supernatural' things from being able to be studied because of their nature, it's because of the lack of evidence. In this respect, the problem with science not being able to study spiritual things is the same as its inability to study leprechauns and centaurs, there is no evidence, and thus, 'science is silent' on these issues to the same degree.

They aren't events that happened in the past that we can say "God broke the laws of nature to create a miraculous event". They simply cannot be addressed by science. As such, I stand by what I said - of the three issues you raised as examples, only Jesus' resurrection can be seen to be a matter of "science", since it is generally agreed that people do not rise again from the dead.

If God broke the laws of nature to create a miraculous event, then there could feasibly be evidence of that that could be studied depending on what the miracle was. Again, I don't know why you think the resurrection is a matter of science, I think because it has a physical/material component to it, but from our perspective now given the current lack of evidence, the resurrection is no more able to be studied than the afterlife.

I'm not sure you are arguing against this, but the reason I keep repeating the point that it's the lack of evidence, not necessarily the very nature of the spirit world, that prevents scientific study is because I think there are attempts to 'shield' spiritual assertions from the implications of its inability to be studied, by asserting that science is in principle unable to study them. I don't think that's the case, again, all it takes is one ghost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw

Ah I did love the entire riverworld series although the final ending was a bit of a let down.

Yeah,so was the Maker of Universes series. Farmer had a bad habit of painting himself into a corner and throwing his hands up and just quitting.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NewAge1
The part I feel most religious/spiritually oriented people are missing here is the word "Hypothesis" Religion isn't one, it's a man made construct, a story, a tall tale. The Big Bang has mountains of data behind it, as does string leading to Multiverses and eternal inflation. This is real information, gathered data, and information coming from science to date has proven this story wrong.

The big bang theory is accepted by nearly all people, even religious leaders. That include the Pope and the Dalai-Lama. It is a proven concept. So is eternal inflation, the idea that the Universe is expanding infinitly and it does not contradict most people's beliefs. As I understand it, only the fundamentalists and biblical literalists are against the scientific method. You can have beliefs, theories about the origin of it all, religious or not, while being passionate about science and yes, possibly become a great scientist. I don't think I need to provide you a list. As long as you don't let your beliefs interfere with the scientific method and are willing to reassess them in light of new evidence, I don't see where the issue is.

How can you have read fabric of the cosmos and not be aware of that which I state above? That is where I learned that.

I am aware of that, I've read quite a few books on physics in language made accessible for the laypublic as I am not an expert. Greene and Kaku are great scientific popularizers. But that's just not the point I am trying to make, one you seem to dismiss for some reason.

You see, even if Linde and Guth are right and that the theory of inflation lead us to a Multiverse, that still doesn't answer the nagging question of utlimate origin. There is a Multiverse, great! But why should it exist at all? In my opinion, that certainly doesn't rule out the hypothesis of a metaphysical progenitor, this overarching structure, of which all things are made. That which we call God in common language. Utlimately, it may require it. In fact, a Multiverse would mean we are part of some reality far greater than we could possibly imagine. Some people would have to readjust their beliefs to take into account these new elements added to our understanding of the world or choose to deny it. But sorry, I am not seeing how that should favor Atheism in any way.

That being said, there is no proof for the Multiverse theory and a brane-worlds collision. It's theoritical. So, unless observation and experimentation should provide solid evidence that confirm these theories I would still place a caveat as to try to present it as a fact of life.

"It's hard to build models of inflation that don't lead to a multiverse," Alan Guth, an MIT theoretical physicist unaffiliated with the new study, said during a news conference Monday. "It's not impossible, so I think there's still certainly research that needs to be done. But most models of inflation do lead to a multiverse, and evidence for inflation will be pushing us in the direction of taking [the idea of a] multiverse seriously."

Source: http://www.space.com...onal-waves.html

Edited by sam_comm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather

There is a Multiverse, great! But why should it exist at all? In my opinion, that certainly doesn't rule out the hypothesis of a metaphysical progenitor, this overarching structure, of which all things are made. That which we call God in common language. Utlimately, it may require it. In fact, a Multiverse would mean we are part of some reality far greater than we could possibly imagine.

EXCELLENT!!!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NewAge1
EXCELLENT!!!!

A great physicist and mathematician once wrote:

''The Universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine.''

-Sir James Jeans, The Mysterious Universe.

Edited by sam_comm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spacecowboy342

But the point is, how do you know that existence - meaning the Universe and reality - only required the actual laws of physics to come into being? As far as science is concerned, there was no laws of physics, no time and no space as we know them before the big bang. That is in itself a very challenging notion that raises fundamental questions. What's the point of this incredibly small singularity coming out of 'nowhere'? Claiming that there is no need of a setting forth by a metaphysical progenitor or anything else with 'purpose' or not is but a belief that isn't supported by any scientific data. We simply don't know.

True, that we don't know with a certainty. But we do know that that laws of physics as we understand them don't rule out the possibility, which, I think is enough to refute the argument that God is required to kick things off. And no singularity was required. All that was required was a tremendous amount of energy. Scientists do have a pretty good idea about the conditions back to the first few plank time units of the BB. We may never know for certain the initial conditions. Hawking says nothing not of this universe is required to explain our existence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather

EXCELLENT!!!!

I'm sorry. This is so beautifully put. I'm adding it to a personal journal that I have. ( the thing I said EXCELLENT!!! To of course) :D

Edited by White Crane Feather

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather

True, that we don't know with a certainty. But we do know that that laws of physics as we understand them don't rule out the possibility, which, I think is enough to refute the argument that God is required to kick things off. And no singularity was required. All that was required was a tremendous amount of energy. Scientists do have a pretty good idea about the conditions back to the first few plank time units of the BB. We may never know for certain the initial conditions. Hawking says nothing not of this universe is required to explain our existence.

It's bigger than that. Think hard and you will see that there must be fundamental laws to even hold certain things in place. Unfortunatly we enter a realm full of regression at that point... But what would you expect from trying to understand the base. Because "it's all about the base". :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spacecowboy342
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spacecowboy342

It's bigger than that. Think hard and you will see that there must be fundamental laws to even hold certain things in place. Unfortunatly we enter a realm full of regression at that point... But what would you expect from trying to understand the base. Because "it's all about the base". :D

I suspect you are right about the necessity for fundamental laws though we may never know exactly their nature. Poincarre'e recurrence theorem says that 10^10^10^10^10^1.1 years or plank time units (at that scale the unit of measure doesn't matter much) after the universe reaches it's state of maximum entropy it will tunnel to it's initial state and everything kicks off again. I don't know if this is correct but I like the idea. It seems poetic and elegant to me.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.