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 -

Is God become the Universe?


taniwha

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, pallidin said:

Is that equation the "totality expression" of Reality?

I think not.

I have heard it referred to as encompassing  virtually all  we will encounter ....  not the  totality of all possible events 

1 hour ago, pallidin said:

According to some, only 3% of Reality is currently understood.

... and that is a looooong  way from  3%  .     The figure I read was 5%  and relating to a different  observation ,  maybe  sourcing that  (full) quote will help clear up the confusion ? 

1 hour ago, pallidin said:

Thus, that equation represents the 3%.

 

Only if one  forces the two ideas  ( which seem incorrect )   together  .   

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

There's a bit of a flaw with your idea there DieChecker. That being that the modern Abrahamic God, Yahweh, is actually a merged deity that started out as two completely separate entities with separate functions within separate pantheons, Yahweh of the Midianites and El of the Canaanites, so on what basis can you or anyone else claim that the Abrahamic God known today can be assumed to be the "one actual God"? Just curious how you rationalize the inconsistencies to validate the above claim.

cormac

Ahhhh.... But given that theories are refined over time, would not the current theory be the most likely to be correct? :devil:

Otherwise I agree the Christian God is an amalgam of earlier gods. I'm  not really rationalizing, just having some mental religious fun with the idea.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/26/2017 at 8:30 PM, psyche101 said:

No they are not a long way from it, not even half of all scientists are religious let alone Christian. 

Like most things... I depends on your definitions. Your definitions of "Christian" and "Scientist". :tu:

According to a 2009 Pew Research Poll, 51% of scientists believe in some form of God.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/12-famous-scientists-on-the-possibility-of-god_us_56afa292e4b057d7d7c7a1e5

Quote

When President Barack Obama nominated the Christian geneticist Francis Collins to head the National Institutes of Health in 2009, some American scientists questioned whether someone who professed a strong belief in God was qualified to lead the largest biomedical research agency in the world. 

This argument — that scientific inquiry is essentially incompatible with religious belief — has been gaining traction in some circles in recent years. In fact, according to a 2009 Pew Research Center survey, American scientists are about half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher, universal power. Still, the survey found that the percentage of scientists that believe in some form of a deity or power was higher than you may think — 51 percent.  

And it the super liberal Huffington Post, so you know it is True. :devil:

Quote

No they do not. We even had one weigh in on a thread, it was a friend of Barb's who we have not seen for a very long time. She said she used religion as a moral compass, and many do. Most do not have an answer either way because they do not think about God enough to answer the question with any accuracy. 

An appeal to authority is no more valid of it comes from a scientist, politician or evangelist. 

And - look what happened when Obama cited Francis Collins as the new director of the National Institutes of Health, many scientists rallied and said his faith disqualified him from the position. 

If one of them saw that there was reasoning behind the God concept we would see god mentioned in lectures on Physics and Astronomy - we don't though. 

And yet, Collins IS the director of the NIH, even today 8 years later. Guess those scientists didn't put up too big a stink. If it was like 25%/75%, he'd never have gotten into office. 

Did you also know that Collins was the leader on the Human Genome Project? One of the most important research projects in the last 50 years. And yet he's religious. Shoots holes in your theory Psyche. :P

Quote

Honestly, the logic does not apply, Phlogiston was not one of many theories floating about that all "might be right" it came, it saw, it conquered, nobody still wonders if it might be right, or even partly right, evidence to support it grew. The God concept is more like one of the thousand guesses we took that we had to throw away when proof came up. It would be more like a large body of people arguing today which is the correct theory, but that wont happen, only in religion do we constantly prop up failed theories and given them endless chances to be true.

Phlogiston in this context is the initial theory of God, resolution that tells us this is a natural Universe and gives us the periodic table - the only answer with actual evidence behind it. 

So, when it is inconvenient, logic must be rejected? When the subject is distasteful to you, you fall back on pleas to emotion?

The fact you didn't reply to the question means it probably is true. The falseness of 1000 other gods does not discount the Christian God. Just as the falseness of 1000 previous scientific theories does not discount the current theory.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/26/2017 at 9:30 PM, psyche101 said:

Not only that, I do not only not see a divine influence, I see no reason to consider such exists at all. Life is tough, it is not fair, it does not matter if you believe or not, both sides of that coin have the same trials and tribulations. I see Darwin's view of Ichneumonidae in all aspects of life. Nothing an entity like God would even want to put his name to. As wonderful and stunning as the world is, it also has a side that will terrify and freeze one. 

Ahhh... But I didn't say divine, I said Miraculous, which can mean supernatural, but could also be from other unknown forces. Some people believe it is aliens, or faeries, or ghosts/spirits, which do miraculous things. Some believe in Magic.

I'd also suggest that even if Earth and humanity are a "failure", that nothing is science is considered failure, and a good scientist will attach his name to any actions/events he works on.

Quote

But why? If there are causations that means God's "ways" are not outside of science and can be measured and verified. 

So, if a sandwich shows up on your porch, there could be hundreds of ways it could have gotten there. Some theories say that given enough odds, it could have even miraculously appeared out of nothing. Is that true?

Quote

I find predictions very convincing, if you want a repeatable, then we have (according to Goddard) 2,271 satellites in orbit, which can be changed, are repeatable to a very accurate orbits maintaining perfect position. 

All man made meteors in orbit. 

The key statement here is "man-made". Of course human influenced things are going to be repeatable, we built them to be repeatable. What natural thing can be forced to happen the same way twice? Can the wind be forced to blow a blade of grass exactly the same?

Quote

Someone has given you a misguided ideal of Quantum properties. It is not going to happen. 

Random chance does have a statistic. We can apply that. 

I'd been led to believe that the odds approach zero, but never reach zero.

Random chance has statistical odds? 

Quote

Unfortunately many make it more than personal and claim it can compete with science, which is where the war begins. That is simply not the case. 

I'd not call it a war. Only a tiny handful are even angered by it. 

I do agree that no one should try to Force anyone else to believe. But telling them your experiences and opinions isn't wrong.

Quote

Not quite the case, as in the Fatima case, science looks for more rational reasons, it does not dismiss many witnesses, it only questions a layman's conclusion supported by appeal to authority. 

I'd argue that science accepts explanations that fall within already accepted explanations, but that it often Rejects the idea of new explanations, which are yet to be evidenced. And there's nothing wrong with that, other then that they should remain open to new evidence.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/26/2017 at 10:43 PM, psyche101 said:

To let us know other creations exist which would drive us to them, and force us to be the best we can be with out intelligence, and why would God make other species suffer for our sins as initiated by Adam?

18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21 that rthe creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now.

For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

This would be the God that knows everything that has happened, is happening and will happen? And you think he'd hand space travel to the ancient Israelites.... OK, OK... Strawman. But really why would God do that? God didn't tell Moses about North and South America, so why tell him about other worlds?

Your assumption is that Jesus didn't go to those other beings living out there in the Universe. We have no idea if that is true or not. Could be that all aliens are Christians.

Quote

That is out and out poetic license. I do not feel it illustrates anything but how imaginative you can be, it is certainly not convincing that the Bible intended such to ever be read in that light.

Yes, it is poetic license. I'm just pointing out that you're claiming the Bible says XYZ, but that it can be made to say ABC... You're insistence that the book doesn't say something is as ridiculous as my saying it says fish live in space.

Quote

"Empty space is like a kingdom, and earth and sky are no more than a single individual person in that kingdom.
"Upon one tree are many fruits, and in one kingdom there are many people.
"How unreasonable it would be to suppose that, besides the earth and the sky which we can see, there are no other skies and no other earths."
          -- Teng Mu, a Chinese scholar of the Sung Dynasty (960 -- 1280 A.D.)1904

 

The moon is a prime example of another planetary body in the heavens. It can easily be used to demonstrate the concept of other worlds, it would not be hard for even an ancient goat herder to understand. 

Like - look, soo that up there, it;s like earth but a bit different, other planets like that exist with other men.

Not a difficult concept to grasp at all by any stretch of the imagination. 

I'd hardly call 1000 AD the ancient world. That's the cusp of the Renaissance, when compared to 2000 BC when Moses supposedly walked the Earth.

It wouldn't be hard for a ancient goat herder to understand, if it could be somehow taught to him by another human, who already understood it. If it was taught to him by, say, Hawking using advanced physics would he catch on, or would he have only half an idea of what was being explained?

Quote

I honestly do not see how it is not. We already have the answer that conforms to physics and offers predictions.

It simply is of no help to make up stuff to prop up failed guesses that science has now clarified. 

So you stand firm in that there can be no scientific correlation using hindsight? At the going back and looking at older sources of data to extrapolate into the now? 

Quote

Not at all, and I cannot see how you come to that conclusion. Saying the Genesis bits attributed to Moses are really some sort of vague description of something we now know is nothing like taking the initial observation and expanding upon that very notion. Genesis did not lead us toward the further observation that allowed us to realise the method of the Big Bang, the theory of Gravity did though. We did not look at Gravity from a Quantum view and go "ohh, that is what Newton must have meant...."

Wait, I thought it was science to take an idea and expand upon it with a hypothesis, and then see if evidence can fit that hypothesis. You see unwilling to even consider a hypothesis. Because you believe you already know what the data is, before it is even collected.

Yet, when looking at Gravity from a Quantum view, review of Newton's work is not dismissed, it is reviewed and examined to see if it adds.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/11/2017 at 4:13 AM, DieChecker said:

The universe is the body of God? That would mean we live in a Living Universe? 

the universe is considered to be a living universe.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

nasa did an artistic drawing of the universe.  the drawing looked like a piece of dna.  sorry i don't know how to look it up.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, danielost said:

nasa did an artistic drawing of the universe.  the drawing looked like a piece of dna.  sorry i don't know how to look it up.

Cool. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Like most things... I depends on your definitions. Your definitions of "Christian" and "Scientist". :tu:

According to a 2009 Pew Research Poll, 51% of scientists believe in some form of God.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/12-famous-scientists-on-the-possibility-of-god_us_56afa292e4b057d7d7c7a1e5

And it the super liberal Huffington Post, so you know it is True. :devil:

It is both true and not. Such is the preferred ground of social media. 

It actually has some claims that would be considered offensive by newer scientists, and are just not true, Hawking, Sagan and DeGrasse Tyson are listed there, they do not believe in God, that is complete misrepresentation, the rest that the author of that article dredged up are before Darwin's time. An arm tied behind their backs in that situation. And, Einstein was Pantheist, a very different view. 

Pew did some surveys, but that figure is suspiciously the same as the number garnered by Elaine Howard Ecklund in her worldwide study (The RICE Study) that managed to come up with that figure. The Huff represented that view too:

LINK - What Scientists Think About Religion

In this link we have some examples that very much outline what I was saying earlier, that a small percentage of scientist take any stock in God (those who think about the question enough to provide an answer) and it is used for personal guidance, not to actually explain anything, or present the notion that belief in God is valid. From the link I provided:

In fact, about one-fifth of the atheist scientists I spoke with say they consider themselves “spiritual atheists.” Perhaps their stories are the most interesting. One chemist I talked with does not believe in God, yet she says she craves a sense of something beyond herself that provides a feeling of purpose and meaning and a moral compass. She sees herself as having an engaged spirituality, one that motivates her to live differently. For example, spiritual reasons keep her from accepting money from the Department of Defense, she says; for her, it’s too linked to the military.

I mean, there are shades of CT there, sure we have a scientists, one who believes in a "higher power" not God, has issues with defence and allows such to sway her judgment. I would say that is why she is a chemist, and not director of research for her department. 

Now this is one who would be categorized as "having a belief in God" according to that study, yet a personal sense of spirituality is actually the case here, and nothing remotely associated with that persons personal views offers and validity to the God concept whatsoever. 

I will outright say I do not like Miss Ecklund's work. I feel it does not represent an accurate view of the actual situation. Many studies well refute that one, but it gets cited regularly and no doubt because the average person shows a marked difference to what real figures show on local scales and can identify with the proposal being pushed forward there. Most studies historically tell a very different story despite Ms Ecklund's insistence otherwise.

LINK - Leading Scientists Still Reject God

The popular media balyhoo the fiction that science is supportive of religion. A recent issue of Newsweek (July 20, 1998) featured a cover story "Science finds God" which gave many innocent readers the impression that scientists in droves were finding scientific "evidence" allowing for God and an afterlife and were jumping on the religion bandwagon. Some of these 1998 reports were stimulated by a June 1998 Science and the Spiritual Quest Conference organized by Robert John Russell, and sponsored by The Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences (CTNS) at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley. Since this is an organization devoted to the reconcilation of science and religion it's no surprise the the speakers were supportive of the idea of the possibility of god and/or an afterlife, though some of the papers were so speculative and abstruse that it's hard to tell whether they were profound philosophy or mere moonshine. One wonders whether some speakers came just for the stipend provided by the John Templeton Foundation. Several Nobel-Prize winning scientists gave papers at this meeting. The papers were mostly philosophical and speculative. No new hard evidence was produced. News reports failed to put these wishful speculations in perspective by pointing out that most scientists are, in fact, not religious. And the percent of "leading" scientists who hold religious beliefs has been declining from around 30% in 1914 to less than 10% in 1998. Wayne Spencer, editor of The Skeptical Intelligencer (a publication of the Association for Skeptical Inquiry) has provided me with this summary of an article in the journal Nature which documents this fact.

LINK - Leading scientists still reject God

Our chosen group of "greater" scientists were members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Our survey found near universal rejection of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists. Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality). Overall comparison figures for the 1914, 1933 and 1998 surveys appear in Table 1.

 

The more prominent ones position is with regards to science, the more likely they are to reject God, plainly, knowledge erodes religion. Ms Ecklund's research is worldwide, and third world countries produce a skewed result.

LINK - Eminent scientists reject the supernatural: a survey of the Fellows of the Royal Society

Fellows of the Royal Society of London were invited to participate in a survey of attitudes toward religion. They were asked about their beliefs in a personal God, the existence of a supernatural entity, consciousness surviving death, and whether religion and science occupy non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA). Overwhelmingly the majority of Fellows affirmed strong opposition to the belief in a personal god, to the existence of a supernatural entity and to survival of death. On 'NOMA’, the majority of Fellows indicated neither a strong disagreement nor strong agreement. We also found that while (surprisingly) childhood religious upbringing and age were not significantly related to current attitudes toward religion, scientific discipline played a small but significant influence: biological scientists are even less likely to be religious than physical scientists and were more likely to perceive conflict between science and religion.

5 hours ago, DieChecker said:

And yet, Collins IS the director of the NIH, even today 8 years later. Guess those scientists didn't put up too big a stink. If it was like 25%/75%, he'd never have gotten into office. 

He was always going in, he was appointed by Obama. The guy most Americans blame all their woes on. As we well know, the American Public has an aversion to anything that challenges religion, Atheists are hated by the American Public, the POTUS will and does bend to that will of the masses, be they the more ignorant part of the equation here with regards to those being judged. 

LINK - The numbers are in: America still distrusts atheists and Muslims

Given the high level of xenophobia in the United States toward Muslims since 9/11, it is not surprising, but is still depressing to find them ranked so unfavorably. And atheists are shot down to the bottom and universally disliked by just about every religious group there is.

As we also know the majority of Americans still believe in creationism, politics made that decision. 

5 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Did you also know that Collins was the leader on the Human Genome Project? One of the most important research projects in the last 50 years. And yet he's religious. Shoots holes in your theory Psyche. :P

Ho so? The more prominent people in the field all say the same thing I do. Richard Dawkins challenged his appointment based purely on his belief, and biologist at UC Berkeley and an Investigator of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Michael Eisen said and I quote:

Biomedical research in the US has been driven by the creativity and industry of individual investigators and their trainees. Collins has systematically diverted funds from investigator initiated projects in favor of  “big science” projects conceived in and managed from inside the Beltway.

The model for these initiatives is the well-regarded Human Genome Project. However Collins, who headed this project in its final years, learned all the wrong lessons from this effort, focusing on central planning and control, and the generation of massive datasets, while ignoring the importance of technology development. Hence his signature projects as NIH director have been ill-conceived and wasteful of precious research funds.

The NIH has always aimed to fund scientists based on their ideas and accomplishments, but under Collins’s big science paradigm, money is increasingly doled out based on researchers’ willingness to sacrifice their autonomy and creativity to Bethesda’s plans. Scientists are herded into consortia and spend endless hours on conference calls to produce data that are of fleeting value.

Collins’ has further corrupted the process of peer review by becoming too close to leaders of the major research institutions, who have had an outsized role in shaping billions of dollars of NIH initiatives, and then benefited disproportionately when funds from these projects were distributed.

LINK

IMHO, a POTUS should not get a say here, he should defer to those who are more knowledgeable in this area. 

As a side note, Collins position is "The God Of The Gaps". When questioning his appointment, Dawkins says the question of God is a scientific one for which there could be evidence. Collins, on the other hand, says the question of God's existence is not scientific but "outside of science's ability to really weigh in." Honestly, I would expect more than evasive tactics if his proposals held any validity at all. Collins is more an embarrassment to the position than an asset. At least from an academic view, which honestly is all that should matter in academic affairs. 

5 hours ago, DieChecker said:

So, when it is inconvenient, logic must be rejected? When the subject is distasteful to you, you fall back on pleas to emotion?

I am honestly not sure how you come to that conclusion, logically what I have proposed is correct, nobody does still say Phlogiston has merit, it sits in our historical record like the Greek Gods. No matter how many times you rehash Phlogiston, no matter what poetic license is applied, it remains the wrong conclusion. 

5 hours ago, DieChecker said:

The fact you didn't reply to the question means it probably is true. The falseness of 1000 other gods does not discount the Christian God. Just as the falseness of 1000 previous scientific theories does not discount the current theory.

But they have nothing to do with each other? 

Phlogiston is false, it did not offer anything to current working theory, it did not so much as hint at the periodic table, it remains wrong no matter how good current theory is, and has absolutely nothing to do with it? Applying poetic license to Phlogiston as you have with religion does not make Phlogiston nor religion correct. Phlogiston is a Red Herring to the periodic table. 

So, not it does not discount that someone could "get it right: but discovery does illustrate that the God concept is wrong, just like the periodic table took over for Phlogiston. If there was some sort of relationship, I think you would have a valid response, but there simply is not. The concept of God set a benchmark to challenge, not framework. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, taniwha said:

Cool. :)

Daniel usually gets stuff wrong, I assume he means the aesthetic similarities between a brain cell and the Universe. And as far as I know, it was not NASA, but Brandeis University. It is an interesting comparison, like how a planet is round and an atom is round. Little more than that though.

 

neuron-galaxy.jpg

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

Daniel usually gets stuff wrong, I assume he means the aesthetic similarities between a brain cell and the Universe. And as far as I know, it was not NASA, but Brandeis University. It is an interesting comparison, like how a planet is round and an atom is round. Little more than that though.

 

neuron-galaxy.jpg

 

Double cool.  :):)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Ahhh... But I didn't say divine, I said Miraculous, which can mean supernatural, but could also be from other unknown forces. Some people believe it is aliens, or faeries, or ghosts/spirits, which do miraculous things. Some believe in Magic.

But we were talking about my view I thought? I see enough suffering and random wrongdoing to well discount any sort of influence, It's like morals. Many of us abide by them, we can as a community say when something is "wrong" like murder or theft, yet unless we act on our morals, nothing happens, nothing will happen. There is no ultimate code, no ultimate moral set, there is nothing more than what we want it to be.  The Universe will roll on regardless if the most heinous crime is exhibited, I can dance naked defecating on a holy shrine, the Lord won't strike me down, that is something I can bank on, something that will happen. There is no ultimate authority. 

Quote

I'd also suggest that even if Earth and humanity are a "failure", that nothing is science is considered failure, and a good scientist will attach his name to any actions/events he works on.

But with our understanding, God seems to be taking credit for stuff he did not do, as well as stuff as per the aforementioned that he does not do. He is not omnipotent, man has rendered him impotent. 

Quote

So, if a sandwich shows up on your porch, there could be hundreds of ways it could have gotten there. Some theories say that given enough odds, it could have even miraculously appeared out of nothing. Is that true?

Is that theory true? No it is not. QM does not work like that, such is a wild extension of those trying to understand QM when they do not. Like Mr Walker trying to tell me QM says he can walk through a wall if he tries enough times, not the case, if he tries it billions upon billions of times, some atoms might penetrate the "wall" but he most likely would not notice. 

Nothing has miraculously appeared, everything has been the product of evolutionary processes. Even the big bang, there is nothing to say there were not billions upon billions of big bangs before the one that produced this Universe happened and all would have resulted in nothing. 

Quote

The key statement here is "man-made". Of course human influenced things are going to be repeatable, we built them to be repeatable. What natural thing can be forced to happen the same way twice? Can the wind be forced to blow a blade of grass exactly the same?

Not sure I am understanding, are you not asking for a human influence on the forces of nature? We can make it rain, we can bend the wind or create it easily. So yes, wind can be forced to blow on a blade of grass in the exact same way time and again. Turn on a fan, make a curved surface, many methods could achieve this. 

Quote

I'd been led to believe that the odds approach zero, but never reach zero.

That does not mean it is possible, it is one "possibility". Not the same thing.

Quote

Random chance has statistical odds? 

Yep - LINK - Randomness

Of course there, is, there has to be a point where something moves past randomness. It is determined by the parameters of numbers associated with an event. From the link:

A random sequence of events, symbols or steps has no order and does not follow an intelligible pattern or combination. Individual random events are by definition unpredictable, but in many cases the frequency of different outcomes over a large number of events (or "trials") is predictable. For example, when throwing two dice, the outcome of any particular roll is unpredictable, but a sum of 7 will occur twice as often as 4. In this view, randomness is a measure of uncertainty of an outcome, rather than haphazardness, and applies to concepts of chance, probability, and information entropy.

Quote

I'd not call it a war. Only a tiny handful are even angered by it. 

I do not see it that way, nor do the people in all the debates I have watched, Elaine Howard Ecklund seems to say both, that there is on and isn't one, but there is indeed conflict. Anger is not the right word, frustration seems more apt. 

Quote

I do agree that no one should try to Force anyone else to believe. But telling them your experiences and opinions isn't wrong.

I agree, insisting personal conclusions are correct is where the discussion goes off the rails.

Quote

I'd argue that science accepts explanations that fall within already accepted explanations, but that it often Rejects the idea of new explanations, which are yet to be evidenced. And there's nothing wrong with that, other then that they should remain open to new evidence.

Indeed, but religion is hardly new in any conceivable way, and is eroded by science, Hindsight is not validity, it is personal comfort like the belief itself. 

Edited by psyche101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, taniwha said:

Double cool.  :):)

An atheist can have a sense of spirituality too, it is just a different view to the religious one. Richard Dawkins describes it as a "swelling of the breast when viewing wonders of nature like a supernova or peering into an electron microscope to view the micro world". 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, DieChecker said:

This would be the God that knows everything that has happened, is happening and will happen?

Exactly, and God did not know what the future would hold, that we would see things like family sex or child brides as real abominations, and accept the gay community. He is pretty hopeless for a God.

10 hours ago, DieChecker said:

And you think he'd hand space travel to the ancient Israelites.... OK, OK... Strawman. But really why would God do that? God didn't tell Moses about North and South America, so why tell him about other worlds?

He did not tell him about North and South America because he did not know they existed. That seems rather obvious? He could tell us what the earth would be like at Armageddon, but neglected to mention the other natives practising their own ideals of spirituality? He could only talk about the immediate area that the people who wrote the Bible lived in, which seems to say all we need to know about God. He was restricted to the middle east until man carried him across the world. If we are his children, he neglected entire societies that we now know we are definitely related to, therefore also God's children, yet only people from the middle east seemed to get his attention. 

He didn't know. We spread someone who is supposedly everywhere, everywhere. God came from the middle east because that is where we birthed this concept from other older concepts. 

10 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Your assumption is that Jesus didn't go to those other beings living out there in the Universe. We have no idea if that is true or not. Could be that all aliens are Christians.

Jesus died for the sins of man, the aliens are either sinless or do not rate a mention. They should not exist or be as advanced as according to Genesis all were created after us, before any other planet or star existed. Earth came into existence on the first day of Creation but). God withheld the creation of the Sun, Moon and stars until the fourth day. According to God's word, Earth is unique and holds center stage in God's Creation.
Gosh - almost any young earth creationist can tell you Aliens do not exist and are the product of the Devils influences!! 

10 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Yes, it is poetic license. I'm just pointing out that you're claiming the Bible says XYZ, but that it can be made to say ABC... You're insistence that the book doesn't say something is as ridiculous as my saying it says fish live in space.

Utter nonsense. 

Hindsight is not prediction. Shoehorning God into modern discovery with wild use of poetic license is just like saying Nostradamus was 100% accurate. Some believe that is the case, yet you and I know it is not. 

10 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I'd hardly call 1000 AD the ancient world. That's the cusp of the Renaissance, when compared to 2000 BC when Moses supposedly walked the Earth.

What marked advances in astronomy happened in that part of the world during that first thousand years to produce that view though? Same understanding was it not? We know humans were not less intelligent, they just did not have 2,000 years of experience and experimentation to work with. There is no reason that God could not have explained another world to Moses using the Moon as an example of another world. 

10 hours ago, DieChecker said:

It wouldn't be hard for a ancient goat herder to understand, if it could be somehow taught to him by another human, who already understood it. If it was taught to him by, say, Hawking using advanced physics would he catch on, or would he have only half an idea of what was being explained?

I bet he would understand, Hawkins dumbed down "A Brief History of Time" enough for me to understand it so yeah, Hawkins could do that for a caveman if he had to, again, the moon is the example that simplifies this concept. 

10 hours ago, DieChecker said:

So you stand firm in that there can be no scientific correlation using hindsight? At the going back and looking at older sources of data to extrapolate into the now? 

That is not what is happening, correlation is not to be seen poetic license is. Correlation could offer a more firm connection like prediction, not extending phrases beyond the ridiculous to force a square peg into a round hole. Great lengths are gone to and do not open any doors, they make vague connections to phrases by bending words to suit. 

10 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Wait, I thought it was science to take an idea and expand upon it with a hypothesis, and then see if evidence can fit that hypothesis. You see unwilling to even consider a hypothesis. Because you believe you already know what the data is, before it is even collected.

That is correct, but that is not what is happening here. Poetic license is not making a connection, it is constantly seeking one, which is a very different thing. We have never looked at the Bible and expanded upon the work to lead us to discovery, the closest we have come to that is challenging the Bible for greater understandings, which are undermined by Christians trying to reconcile science and religion with poetic license. For real correlation, we do not start with a conclusion and look for the evidence to fit what we think or it, it works in the complete opposite. That is what poetic license does with religion and science though. 

10 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Yet, when looking at Gravity from a Quantum view, review of Newton's work is not dismissed, it is reviewed and examined to see if it adds.

No, it is not, we do not go back and see if it explains a thing, we use it initially to springboard our way to new discoveries - shoulders of giants, not shadows of giants. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, danielost said:

nasa did an artistic drawing of the universe.  the drawing looked like a piece of dna.  sorry i don't know how to look it up.

LINK

There I did it for you. Not hard mate, not hard at all. 

Edited by psyche101
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/28/2017 at 7:50 PM, psyche101 said:

It is both true and not. Such is the preferred ground of social media. 

It actually has some claims that would be considered offensive by newer scientists, and are just not true, Hawking, Sagan and DeGrasse Tyson are listed there, they do not believe in God, that is complete misrepresentation, the rest that the author of that article dredged up are before Darwin's time. An arm tied behind their backs in that situation. And, Einstein was Pantheist, a very different view. 

Pew did some surveys, but that figure is suspiciously the same as the number garnered by Elaine Howard Ecklund in her worldwide study (The RICE Study) that managed to come up with that figure. The Huff represented that view too:

LINK - What Scientists Think About Religion

In this link we have some examples that very much outline what I was saying earlier, that a small percentage of scientist take any stock in God (those who think about the question enough to provide an answer) and it is used for personal guidance, not to actually explain anything, or present the notion that belief in God is valid. From the link I provided:

In fact, about one-fifth of the atheist scientists I spoke with say they consider themselves “spiritual atheists.” Perhaps their stories are the most interesting. One chemist I talked with does not believe in God, yet she says she craves a sense of something beyond herself that provides a feeling of purpose and meaning and a moral compass. She sees herself as having an engaged spirituality, one that motivates her to live differently. For example, spiritual reasons keep her from accepting money from the Department of Defense, she says; for her, it’s too linked to the military.

I mean, there are shades of CT there, sure we have a scientists, one who believes in a "higher power" not God, has issues with defence and allows such to sway her judgment. I would say that is why she is a chemist, and not director of research for her department. 

Now this is one who would be categorized as "having a belief in God" according to that study, yet a personal sense of spirituality is actually the case here, and nothing remotely associated with that persons personal views offers and validity to the God concept whatsoever. 

I will outright say I do not like Miss Ecklund's work. I feel it does not represent an accurate view of the actual situation. Many studies well refute that one, but it gets cited regularly and no doubt because the average person shows a marked difference to what real figures show on local scales and can identify with the proposal being pushed forward there. Most studies historically tell a very different story despite Ms Ecklund's insistence otherwise.

Of course you don't want it to be a representative view of the situation, because it would mean you are wrong. 

I do like that she actually interviews the scientist rather then just handing out a form with a box for Yes, and for No. Probably in a closed interview you'll get an answer less affected by peer pressure.

Quote

LINK - Leading scientists still reject God

Our chosen group of "greater" scientists were members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Our survey found near universal rejection of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists. Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality). Overall comparison figures for the 1914, 1933 and 1998 surveys appear in Table 1.

The National Academy of Science is fine and all, but they only have 2000 or so members. How many scientists exist inside the US? Maybe a million? Does the trend for the NAoS correlate to the national population? That can't be concluded from the data that is in the link. These are the TOP people in science in the US, and yet, still, 10% of them are religious. I wonder which of them is holding back science?

Quote

I think the following was worth noting.... (from the link)

"Religiosity in Great Britain is less robust than in the US, with polls reporting only 42% believing in a personal God and 52% believing that God or some higher power had a hand in creating the universe (ICM Research 2005). What about British scientists? One thousand and seventy-four Fellows of the Royal Society of London were invited to participate in a survey of attitudes toward religion; 248 Fellows replied."

So basically we have about a quarter of them responding, so I'm not sure that is even a representative cross section. Could be the religious scientists decided not to participate. Also, if we're going international, I'd wonder if the scientists in India, Brazil, Russia, Poland, Pakistan.... all would follow this trend?

Quote

He was always going in, he was appointed by Obama. The guy most Americans blame all their woes on. As we well know, the American Public has an aversion to anything that challenges religion, Atheists are hated by the American Public, the POTUS will and does bend to that will of the masses, be they the more ignorant part of the equation here with regards to those being judged. 

LINK - The numbers are in: America still distrusts atheists and Muslims

Given the high level of xenophobia in the United States toward Muslims since 9/11, it is not surprising, but is still depressing to find them ranked so unfavorably. And atheists are shot down to the bottom and universally disliked by just about every religious group there is.

As we also know the majority of Americans still believe in creationism, politics made that decision. 

But, just look at what is happening with the current POTUS. If the Republican party didn't have 52 Senators, he'd be looking at a bunch of his Candidates for Cabinet positions being rejected. Mostly due to loud complaining of various factions of the Democrat party. This could equally have been true of Scientists regarding Collins, if they had really cared. But, the answer is that they simply didn't actually care. Not in numbers enough that mattered.

People don't like atheists because the ONLY atheists they see are the militant rabid anti-religion ones they see on TV. If, say, Jains got such bad press, you can be sure they would be reviled also. This is an issue of Appearances, not of actual hatred of atheists. If the only Christians you ever saw were on TV, and were the idiots of Westboro Baptist, wouldn't you consider all of them to be like that?

Quote

Ho so? The more prominent people in the field all say the same thing I do. Richard Dawkins challenged his appointment based purely on his belief, and biologist at UC Berkeley and an Investigator of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Michael Eisen said and I quote:

How so? Because you've repeatedly said that religious people Hold Back science. And here I've provided a example of a very religious person who lead one of the most important science projects of the last 50 years. Religion does not hold back science that is a Militant Atheist Meme/Myth. Culture holds back science, not religion.

Quote

I am honestly not sure how you come to that conclusion, logically what I have proposed is correct, nobody does still say Phlogiston has merit, it sits in our historical record like the Greek Gods. No matter how many times you rehash Phlogiston, no matter what poetic license is applied, it remains the wrong conclusion. 

True, just as few, if anyone says the ancient Greek Gods hold merit. Phlogiston is wrong. Greek Gods are wrong. Current Physics is the best answer to fire. Christianity is the best answer (arguably) to religion today.

Quote

But they have nothing to do with each other? 

Phlogiston is false, it did not offer anything to current working theory, it did not so much as hint at the periodic table, it remains wrong no matter how good current theory is, and has absolutely nothing to do with it? Applying poetic license to Phlogiston as you have with religion does not make Phlogiston nor religion correct. Phlogiston is a Red Herring to the periodic table. 

So, not it does not discount that someone could "get it right: but discovery does illustrate that the God concept is wrong, just like the periodic table took over for Phlogiston. If there was some sort of relationship, I think you would have a valid response, but there simply is not. The concept of God set a benchmark to challenge, not framework. 

Phlogiston was thought correct at one point, yes? Just as Zeus was thought correct at one point. Today Physics tells us exactly how fire works. And today we have Christianity as the refined form of religion. A = A, B = B. The correlation is clear. Many past bad ideas does not make the current one wrong. This applies to Physics and Religion, IMHO.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Psyche... I'm quite busy today, but I will get back to your other posts. :devil:

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/28/2017 at 9:54 PM, psyche101 said:

Daniel usually gets stuff wrong, I assume he means the aesthetic similarities between a brain cell and the Universe. And as far as I know, it was not NASA, but Brandeis University. It is an interesting comparison, like how a planet is round and an atom is round. Little more than that though.

 

neuron-galaxy.jpg

 

you would assume wrong.  but this gets my point over quit well  doesn't it.  about the universe being a living cell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, danielost said:

you would assume wrong.  but this gets my point over quit well  doesn't it.  about the universe being a living cell.

No, it does not. Why would you even think so?

Cheers,
Badeskov

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Of course you don't want it to be a representative view of the situation, because it would mean you are wrong. 

Well no, I can be wrong, that is not the issue, the issue is the pool. We both know and agree that religiosity takes precedence in third world countries, as such we have a skewed result. 

9 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I do like that she actually interviews the scientist rather then just handing out a form with a box for Yes, and for No. Probably in a closed interview you'll get an answer less affected by peer pressure.

It also gives her an opportunity to allow personal judgement to creep in. 

9 hours ago, DieChecker said:

The National Academy of Science is fine and all, but they only have 2000 or so members. How many scientists exist inside the US? Maybe a million? Does the trend for the NAoS correlate to the national population? That can't be concluded from the data that is in the link.

The stats for the general population are there as well, the general population have a far higher percentage of believers - not sure if that was what you were asking or not ....

The top minds are the ones who largely abstain from religion. 

9 hours ago, DieChecker said:

These are the TOP people in science in the US, and yet, still, 10% of them are religious. I wonder which of them is holding back science?

Well as shown in the link regarding Collins. People like him, people like Nick Cowan.

Not all by any means, but these people in conflict undermine science in general. There are some good ones like Simon Conway Morris, but as I have said, I cant make heads nor tails of their faith, it departs from the scientific method they know works for a faith based view, it defies all they seem to stand for and live their lives by. There is no validity there, but a puzzling appeal to authority. 

It disappoints me to see people like Collins tout belief on such flimsy premises such as god of the Gaps. 

9 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I think the following was worth noting.... (from the link)

"Religiosity in Great Britain is less robust than in the US, with polls reporting only 42% believing in a personal God and 52% believing that God or some higher power had a hand in creating the universe (ICM Research 2005). What about British scientists? One thousand and seventy-four Fellows of the Royal Society of London were invited to participate in a survey of attitudes toward religion; 248 Fellows replied."

So basically we have about a quarter of them responding, so I'm not sure that is even a representative cross section. Could be the religious scientists decided not to participate.

It seems more likely they find the question so unimportant that they simply treated it with contempt. 

9 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Also, if we're going international, I'd wonder if the scientists in India, Brazil, Russia, Poland, Pakistan.... all would follow this trend?

That is how the RICE Study got the results it did. And that which I protested.

LINK - First worldwide survey of religion and science: No, not all scientists are atheists

“More than half of scientists in India, Italy, Taiwan and Turkey self-identify as religious,” Ecklund said. “And it’s striking that approximately twice as many ‘convinced atheists’ exist in the general population of Hong Kong, for example, (55 percent) compared with the scientific community in this region (26 percent).” 

9 hours ago, DieChecker said:

But, just look at what is happening with the current POTUS. If the Republican party didn't have 52 Senators, he'd be looking at a bunch of his Candidates for Cabinet positions being rejected. Mostly due to loud complaining of various factions of the Democrat party. This could equally have been true of Scientists regarding Collins, if they had really cared. But, the answer is that they simply didn't actually care. Not in numbers enough that mattered.

They do not exist in numbers overall that matter enough, hard to reach that bar mate.

You took a guess at 1 million, and when talking about the leaders in these fields I would put that number much lower. 

But without doubt, the top minds are the ones who are largely non religious, yet these decisions are made with religion in mind. Working backwards. The people who depend in the top minds are telling them what to do. 

9 hours ago, DieChecker said:

People don't like atheists because the ONLY atheists they see are the militant rabid anti-religion ones they see on TV. If, say, Jains got such bad press, you can be sure they would be reviled also. This is an issue of Appearances, not of actual hatred of atheists. If the only Christians you ever saw were on TV, and were the idiots of Westboro Baptist, wouldn't you consider all of them to be like that?

I just don't buy that, atheists are the ones who defy God, there is more attached to that than just the telly, hatred of atheists well precedes television, and it has changed little with the arrival of it. 

9 hours ago, DieChecker said:

How so? Because you've repeatedly said that religious people Hold Back science. And here I've provided a example of a very religious person who lead one of the most important science projects of the last 50 years. Religion does not hold back science that is a Militant Atheist Meme/Myth. Culture holds back science, not religion.

We saw what Michael Elsen said:

However Collins, who headed this project in its final years, learned all the wrong lessons from this effort, focusing on central planning and control, and the generation of massive datasets, while ignoring the importance of technology development. Hence his signature projects as NIH director have been ill-conceived and wasteful of precious research funds.

The importance is seen in varying degrees by those who know the field better than you and I. 

9 hours ago, DieChecker said:

True, just as few, if anyone says the ancient Greek Gods hold merit. Phlogiston is wrong. Greek Gods are wrong. Current Physics is the best answer to fire. Christianity is the best answer (arguably) to religion today.

Phlogiston was thought correct at one point, yes? Just as Zeus was thought correct at one point. Today Physics tells us exactly how fire works. And today we have Christianity as the refined form of religion. A = A, B = B. The correlation is clear. Many past bad ideas does not make the current one wrong. This applies to Physics and Religion, IMHO.

You are assuming the Greek Gods had some sort of merit, they did not. Phlogiston today is as wrong as it ever was, it did not lead to the periodic table. Christianity is a refined version of an incorrect theory, Zeus did not throw lightning bolts, Thor did not create Thunder with a Hammer, it was 100% wrong, it is not something that can be refined into something correct when not never was correct to begin with, like Phlogiston. The periodic table is not refinement of Phlogiston, it is something entirely different and new. 

Today Physics tells us how fire works, and it tells us how the Universe came to be. Just like with Phlogiston, it entirely replaced religious philosophy with a new model altogether. Physics renders religious philosophy redundant. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, danielost said:

you would assume wrong.  

How so? Is that not what you were referring to? 

1 hour ago, danielost said:

but this gets my point over quit well  doesn't it.  about the universe being a living cell.

Not at all, the point it gets across is Pareidolia, the photo is no more connected to a cell than a bunny shaped cloud is related to rabbits. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Psyche... I'm quite busy today, but I will get back to your other posts. :devil:

NP - I might be having quite a big weekend and not reply for a couple days myself, my profile should tell that story :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

 

The theory that God became the Universe is a theological doctrine that has been developed several times historically, and that holds that the creator of the universe actually became the universe

On 2/11/2017 at 1:45 AM, taniwha said:

Hi there, I found this interesting maybe you will too...

Perhaps God and the Universe are one and the same?

Personally I believe it is possible.

If you have any further information to enlighten this topic, then please, you are most welcome to post it here.

Thank you and have fun :P

My definition of god is: All there is.   So, yes, god is the universe and all that it contains and all that happens in it.  There is only god or empty phenomena ~ Buddha 

Other information may be found at: https://www.stillnessspeaks.com/traditions/nonduality-advaita/

Interviews of many modern teachers and witnesses............http://www.conscious.tv/

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jimrich said:

 

The theory that God became the Universe is a theological doctrine that has been developed several times historically, and that holds that the creator of the universe actually became the universe

My definition of god is: All there is.   So, yes, god is the universe and all that it contains and all that happens in it.  There is only god or empty phenomena ~ Buddha 

Other information may be found at: https://www.stillnessspeaks.com/traditions/nonduality-advaita/

Interviews of many modern teachers and witnesses............http://www.conscious.tv/

 

 

If that's true our Creator suffers right a long with us,and wonders to why we ever  got into this mess of materialism. :) 

Edited by docyabut2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, docyabut2 said:

If that's true our Creator suffers right a long with us,and wonders to why we ever  got into this mess of materialism. :) 

It all depends on your point of view. 

From an individual's perspective, you, a person, who believes that you are separate from your Creator, will believe that the Creator: suffers, wonders why, etc,  From the Creator's view everything is exactly as it is supposed to be, since this is all you, the Creator.  The Creator sees NO problem or "mess" anywhere while the individual sees and feels lots of problems. 
The basic point is that there is NO separate individual.  There is only the Creator and the Creator is you (in disguise).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was locked
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.