Jump to content
Unexplained Mysteries uses cookies. By using the site you consent to our use of cookies as per our Cookie Policy.
Close X
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 become the Universe?

485 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

psyche101
On 2/24/2017 at 5:34 PM, pallidin said:

Either position is rationally screwed, because either position is inherently indefensible.

No, that is not true at all, the position of science is constantly being validated with predictions. 

Claims associated with the Bible are 100% hindsight. 

That makes science accountable and religion not so. 

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
On 2/24/2017 at 5:47 PM, pallidin said:

I feel that we must consider extra "dimensions" to be an integral part of Reality.

According to M Theory they are, but only exist below the atomic level. 

 

I have asked you about dimensions before, are you sure you really understand what you are saying here? Dimensions are additional directions we can take. It does not necessarily mean there are entire worlds hidden in them, you seem to have a Sci Fi understanding, not a practical one. 

 

See this?

 

ooo.jpg

 

That are the three dimensions we live in and utilise, time is considered a fourth. 

 

What this? It is known as a Calabi–Yau manifold

220px-Calabi_yau_formatted.svg.png

 

This is what a 2d "slice" might look like:

220px-CalabiYau5.jpg

 The extra dimensions of spacetime are sometimes conjectured to take the form of a 6-dimensional Calabi–Yau manifold, which led to the idea of mirror symmetry.

That is where you will find your "extra dimensions".

 

I would suggest a good read here are a primer to get a better idea of the pros and cons, and a bit of a better understand of the Sci Fi/Science mix you are proposing here.  LINK

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
On 2/24/2017 at 5:59 PM, taniwha said:

This is a very good question, remarkable even.  Even today, with all the benefits of hindsight and technology, the creation of the universe remains only theory.

The mystery endures.

It's not that much of a mystery. What we do have is several possible candidates which illustrate the beginning of the Universe. 

Whether one, is right, or aspect of all are is what we are trying to pin down.

The science behind it is solid. It is only a matter of time before the current theories are finally solidified into a grand unified theory. We have two very good ones that do explain the Universe, QM and GR, bit they do not resolve, so we have a problem there to be resolved. 

Nobody who is actually looking at this is considering God even as an option here. No physics or Astronomy lecture ever postulates God as a possible option. That pretty much says it all. The God concept is simply out first guess at trying to understand the Universe and everything in it. It was wrong, simple as that, just like Phlogiston was wrong, just like Zeus and Thor did not control thunder and lightning. 

Saying it is "only theory" is like saying that the sun going around the earth is "only theory". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
On 2/24/2017 at 7:02 PM, pallidin said:

I would like for someone, anyone, to explain the "Big Bang"

I have several times.

A difference of potential allowed for virtual particles to exist long enough to allow a catalyst that forced unequal amounts of matter and antimatter to come into existence. Because we had more of one than the other, we have an imbalance that allowed matter to exist in the form of particles. 
Rather than a loaf of bread growing to incredible size, think of how electricity propagates and travels, or an algae bloom. I never liked the balloon illustration because I find it confuses things even more. that "Single point" from which the Universe came happened on a larger scale than you are allowing for, the initial "spark" set it in motion, it does not mean everything was in it at one point. It birthed a Universe, it was not "a" Universe. 

You have seen this image I take it?

735683main_pia16873-full_full.jpg.png

 

 

You do know what this is right? It is Cosmic Background Radiation. The oldest picture we can take of the Universe - before atoms, back when the universe was young, before the formation of stars and planets. At that time it was denser, much hotter, and filled with a uniform glow from a white-hot fog of hydrogen plasma. As the universe expanded, both the plasma and the radiation filling it grew cooler. When the universe cooled enough, protons and electrons combined to form neutral hydrogen atoms. These atoms could no longer absorb the thermal radiation, and so the universe became transparent instead of being an opaque fog. Gravity pulled them together pressure created fusion and we had POPIII stars, which processed Hydrogen into more elements, same again with POPII stars which lead to POPIII stars and us. Every element in your body can be found in a star. The elements in your right hand probably came from a different star than those in your left. 

 

On 2/24/2017 at 7:02 PM, pallidin said:

The entirety of our universe... All our stars, planets, galaxies, etc, from an initial spacial frame no larger than a loaf of bread.

Smaller than that a spark, but to deny that is impossible would be akin to saying electricity is impossible. it can after all just suddenly appear from seemingly nowhere and kill you on the spot. Your loaf of bread scenario is limited, it is like saying "only static electricity exists and only in small charges" which is most definitely not the case. You are missing or deliberately ignoring that a great chunk of this big picture exists, but that does explain that which you consider unexplainable.

That answers are there, pretending they do not exist does not make them go away. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
On 2/24/2017 at 7:53 PM, taniwha said:

Maybe we just call that other life God?

 

Than that makes us God too, so not so special after all. Just another bit in this vast universe.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
On 2/24/2017 at 9:15 PM, pallidin said:

The burden of proof appears not to be towards each other, rather, towards ourselves.

Perhaps that is essentially true in all such matters.

It is indeed, we have answers that not only are repeatable upon demand, but offer prediction, which is something belief in God cannot do, and some choose to roundly ignore them for ancient feelgood fables. 

That is a personal position. And that is what God is, a choice. There is no good reason in existence to consider God as real, only one giant appeal to authority. Just like one might prefer red over blue, one can choose to learn physics, or run with the ancient handed down fable. Not meant to be offensive, but that is indeed the reality of the situation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
On 2/24/2017 at 9:21 PM, pallidin said:

For one to say "Ah, there is no Zeus, thus God can not exist" is like saying...

"Look, it's a cloudy day, the Sun must not exist"

No it is not at all.

It is a direct example that we have done exactly what we are doing right now, and how it was the wrong guess. Zeus was considered very real once upon a time, just like the updated Abrahamic versions. 

And it illustrates how we made up God's to explain the Universe and everything in it with guesses. Where did all those God's come from? Us. Just like the current one too. What illustrates a marked difference with how the current Abrahamic God came to be and how the Greek and Roman Gods came to be? Or Allah for that matter? 

We have created over a thousand Gods in our written history, this well illustrates the God concept is a man made thing we do to comfort ourselves, there is no reason to consider the concept to have any basis in reality. A repeated experiment with the same results that has accompanied curiosity as it developed. 

The sun still shines through the clouds too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
On 2/24/2017 at 9:47 PM, pallidin said:

There was this ant crawling across the sidewalk.

"Look at me!, the ant proclaims, waving it's limbs in puffy proudness.

A great shadow appears.

 

We did not create ants, we did not give them a role in nature, we are not God's to Ants by any stretch of the imagination. We are a hazard to them. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
On 2/25/2017 at 0:23 AM, DieChecker said:

Yes. But, still God doesn't speak to every object on Earth.

If we want to talk life in space... How about this....


Genesis 1-6:  “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.”... "God called the vault “sky.”"

Genesis 1-16: "God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars."
Genesis 1-20: “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 

So, the waters were separated, but it doesn't say that the sky, and water later populated is only the Earth waters... The outer waters, and outer sky could be seen as being included as "teeming with living creatures". Thus, life in space?
 

If he wanted to, he would just say I am God of you and other worlds where others exist.

What you have proposed is an imaginative piece of hindsight unsupported by the actual work. That is where the differences and problems be. God said this world is it, there is no mention of other worlds or other life. Putting words in God;s mouth for him is just unconvincing. 

On 2/25/2017 at 0:23 AM, DieChecker said:

Are there any other ancient incidents of people actually believing in other planets? I think the concept might have been too much for him to comprehend.

No, sorry, cannot believe that, the Moon would have been a good enough example. That makes the entire concept very simple. 

On 2/25/2017 at 0:23 AM, DieChecker said:

There can be no Correlation in hindsight? That's preposterous. :P I'd say that reexamination of evidence/data/reports in hindsight doesn't discount whatever Conclusions might be drawn.

We already have evidence that adequately explains the Universe. I do not see how trying to force a man made explanation in helps anyone resolve anything. It just gives room for pause and denial of human achievement. Such alternate theories do nothing more than undermine science and discovery. 

On 2/25/2017 at 0:23 AM, DieChecker said:

I think you are drawing a distinction simply to defend your beliefs. If someone goes to ancient Copernicus and re-imagines what he was thinking, that's simply trying to build on science. If one does that for Moses, it is rubbish hindsight handwaving?

Yes it is. It is not like the claims of Moses were built upon to reach further, discovery and knowledge is hobbled to shoehorn such fables into knowledge with a large helping of poetic license. Not even similar. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
On 2/25/2017 at 0:29 AM, DieChecker said:

I've actually witnessed "proof" of God, or at least the Miraculous.

Sorry, but I do not believe that, like the poetic license used to shoehorn God into discovery, I feel you have decided to blinker a view to allow for Acts of God, that which others would call "random chance". If it was more than personal, and with so many instances, it seems preposterous that no distinct causations can be provided. 

Quote

But when confronted with such things, the skeptics ask to repeat the situation, or it never happened. To repeat such things is like asking for a meteor to fly the same exact path on demand.

99942 Apophis will be passing by at 19,400 miles (31,300 kilometers) above Earth's surface on April 13 2029.

Quote

Or they simply point at random chance. When confronted with situations that would be tens of thousand to one in occurrence, happening repeatedly, and correlating heavily to prayers of involved people, they still MUST stick with their answer of Random Chance, or their personal understanding of the universe would collapse. Odds of Billions, or even Trillions, to one is more acceptable then the possibility of someone praying and something happening as a result.

Random chance is a definite. We can bank on it, it will happen, that still factors down to possibilities that come from how definites play out according to outside factors. We can tighten down random chance as we did with Apophis, the Dinosaurs never knew what was going to end them, but we can and take control of the situation. That never has, and is not ever going to happen with the God concept. 

Quote

It is such evidence that leads otherwise Rational, Logical, Intelligent people (Like myself :tu:) to actually practice religion, and believe in the presence of a supernatural deity.

Personal evidence is just as reliable as personal opinion. It is not a reason to practise a religion, that sounds more like personal validation to be honest. A reason to believe what you are doing is sound and just, when other sound discoveries show otherwise, If you are satisfied with the proof, but cannot convince another that your proof is actually proof, how solid is it? That brings us right back to opinion doesn't it? 

 

Pallidin constantly saying "neither side has any proof" is simply grossly incorrect. That is merely opinion based on deliberate ignorance. 

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

It's not that much of a mystery. What we do have is several possible candidates which illustrate the beginning of the Universe. 

Whether one, is right, or aspect of all are is what we are trying to pin down.

The science behind it is solid. It is only a matter of time before the current theories are finally solidified into a grand unified theory. We have two very good ones that do explain the Universe, QM and GR, bit they do not resolve, so we have a problem there to be resolved. 

Nobody who is actually looking at this is considering God even as an option here. No physics or Astronomy lecture ever postulates God as a possible option. That pretty much says it all. The God concept is simply out first guess at trying to understand the Universe and everything in it. It was wrong, simple as that, just like Phlogiston was wrong, just like Zeus and Thor did not control thunder and lightning. 

Saying it is "only theory" is like saying that the sun going around the earth is "only theory". 

And yet, statistically half those scientists are devout Christians. The fact no one actually postulates God as the cause of Creation is because there isn't any firm scientifically approved evidence of such. Regardless many, or MOST, of those scientists do believe it happened.

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

No it is not at all.

It is a direct example that we have done exactly what we are doing right now, and how it was the wrong guess. Zeus was considered very real once upon a time, just like the updated Abrahamic versions. 

And it illustrates how we made up God's to explain the Universe and everything in it with guesses. Where did all those God's come from? Us. Just like the current one too. What illustrates a marked difference with how the current Abrahamic God came to be and how the Greek and Roman Gods came to be? Or Allah for that matter? 

We have created over a thousand Gods in our written history, this well illustrates the God concept is a man made thing we do to comfort ourselves, there is no reason to consider the concept to have any basis in reality. A repeated experiment with the same results that has accompanied curiosity as it developed. 

The sun still shines through the clouds too. 

Let's go back to your Phlogiston example. Doubtless there were theories of how fire worked going back into pre-history, and today we have a good understanding of why fire happens, right? So, do all those dozens, hundreds, thousands.... of ideas on how fire worked, that were Wrong, mean the current theory is wrong?? Or can we have thousands of wrong conclusions and one correct one?

Do you see where my logic is going? Thousands of other gods, assumed to be false, does not make all gods, or God, false. It could very well mean the most accepted reasoning is the correct one. In which case it would be the Abrahamic God, which should be assumed to be the one actual God.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
8 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Sorry, but I do not believe that, like the poetic license used to shoehorn God into discovery, I feel you have decided to blinker a view to allow for Acts of God, that which others would call "random chance". If it was more than personal, and with so many instances, it seems preposterous that no distinct causations can be provided. 

I understand you don't believe that. You've not witnessed the Miraculous, so you logically deduce it does not really happen.

I didn't say there were no direct causations, but that the chances were astronomical.

Quote

99942 Apophis will be passing by at 19,400 miles (31,300 kilometers) above Earth's surface on April 13 2029.

That's a prediction, not a repeatable action. Force Apophis to travel that same exact route 20 days later. Why can't that be done? Does that mean the originals Apophis pass by didn't happen? 

Quote

Random chance is a definite. We can bank on it, it will happen, that still factors down to possibilities that come from how definites play out according to outside factors. We can tighten down random chance as we did with Apophis, the Dinosaurs never knew what was going to end them, but we can and take control of the situation. That never has, and is not ever going to happen with the God concept. 

True. I've been told there is a chance that this computer on this desk will simply fall through the desk, but for practical purposes I don't think it's going to happen. Sometimes Random Chance simply is used to dismiss what should be "impossible".

Quote

Personal evidence is just as reliable as personal opinion. It is not a reason to practise a religion, that sounds more like personal validation to be honest. A reason to believe what you are doing is sound and just, when other sound discoveries show otherwise, If you are satisfied with the proof, but cannot convince another that your proof is actually proof, how solid is it? That brings us right back to opinion doesn't it? 

Pallidin constantly saying "neither side has any proof" is simply grossly incorrect. That is merely opinion based on deliberate ignorance. 

I'd in turn suggest that Personal Evidence is the ONLY reason to practice religion.

Also, such events are often shared, and have many witnesses. But science doesn't care if there are 1000 witnesses if it can't be repeated, or scientifically verified.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
51 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

If he wanted to, he would just say I am God of you and other worlds where others exist.

To what purpose? We couldn't leave the planet, or even see worlds around other stars at that point.

Quote

What you have proposed is an imaginative piece of hindsight unsupported by the actual work. That is where the differences and problems be. God said this world is it, there is no mention of other worlds or other life. Putting words in God;s mouth for him is just unconvincing. 

You said the words don't support what I suggested. I'm simply using the existing words to show that it can be done, with a little imagination.

Quote

No, sorry, cannot believe that, the Moon would have been a good enough example. That makes the entire concept very simple. 

Of course people believed in the Moon. They could see it. Show me where any other ancient scientist/philosopher believed in unseen extra terrestrial bodies that orbited other stars.

Quote

We already have evidence that adequately explains the Universe. I do not see how trying to force a man made explanation in helps anyone resolve anything. It just gives room for pause and denial of human achievement. Such alternate theories do nothing more than undermine science and discovery. 

That is not a valid refutation of my posted question and conclusion.

Quote

Yes it is. It is not like the claims of Moses were built upon to reach further, discovery and knowledge is hobbled to shoehorn such fables into knowledge with a large helping of poetic license. Not even similar. 

That means you are fine with hypocrisy as long as it servers your beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

And yet, statistically half those scientists are devout Christians.

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

Quote

The fact no one actually postulates God as the cause of Creation is because there isn't any firm scientifically approved evidence of such. Regardless many, or MOST, of those scientists do believe it happened.

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. 

Quote

Let's go back to your Phlogiston example. Doubtless there were theories of how fire worked going back into pre-history, and today we have a good understanding of why fire happens, right? So, do all those dozens, hundreds, thousands.... of ideas on how fire worked, that were Wrong, mean the current theory is wrong?? Or can we have thousands of wrong conclusions and one correct one?

Do you see where my logic is going? Thousands of other gods, assumed to be false, does not make all gods, or God, false. It could very well mean the most accepted reasoning is the correct one. In which case it would be the Abrahamic God, which should be assumed to be the one actual God.

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. 

Edited by psyche101
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

I understand you don't believe that. You've not witnessed the Miraculous, so you logically deduce it does not really happen.

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. 

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

I didn't say there were no direct causations, but that the chances were astronomical.

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

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

That's a prediction, not a repeatable action. Force Apophis to travel that same exact route 20 days later. Why can't that be done? Does that mean the originals Apophis pass by didn't happen? 

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. 

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

True. I've been told there is a chance that this computer on this desk will simply fall through the desk, but for practical purposes I don't think it's going to happen. Sometimes Random Chance simply is used to dismiss what should be "impossible".

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. 

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

I'd in turn suggest that Personal Evidence is the ONLY reason to practice religion.

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. 

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

Also, such events are often shared, and have many witnesses. But science doesn't care if there are 1000 witnesses if it can't be repeated, or scientifically verified.

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
3 hours ago, DieChecker said:

To what purpose? We couldn't leave the planet, or even see worlds around other stars at that point.

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.

Quote

You said the words don't support what I suggested. I'm simply using the existing words to show that it can be done, with a little imagination.

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.

Quote

Of course people believed in the Moon. They could see it. Show me where any other ancient scientist/philosopher believed in unseen extra terrestrial bodies that orbited other stars.

"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. 

Quote

That is not a valid refutation of my posted question and conclusion.

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. 

Quote

That means you are fine with hypocrisy as long as it servers your beliefs.

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...."

Edited by psyche101
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin
21 hours ago, psyche101 said:

That is simply not true, I have shown you in detail how a difference of potential at a quantum level allows for virtual particles to exist long enough to interact and let matter come to be.

Want proof?

Here you go, this is "proof" of a natural Universe - how it all works. No faith required.

 

WIuQ970QU9hcI7DSDTri5rHqE1zc1MvW5ibCkqC6

Is that equation the "totality expression" of Reality?

I think not.

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

Thus, that equation represents the 3%.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
13 minutes ago, pallidin said:

Is that equation the "totality expression" of Reality?

I think not.

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

Thus, that equation represents the 3%.

 

It completes the standard model, in there you have equations form the sub atomic through to the macro and how matter comes to be via the Higgs. I am honestly not sure what you refer to by "reality" but that is all you need to know there is simply no good reason to consider God as anything more than a man made fable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin
2 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

It completes the standard model, in there you have equations form the sub atomic through to the macro and how matter comes to be via the Higgs. I am honestly not sure what you refer to by "reality" but that is all you need to know there is simply no good reason to consider God as anything more than a man made fable. 

God or not, it doesn't matter.

What does matter is that you are refusing to recognize that the equation specified is presumed true for only 3% of Reality.

That is, there is much, much yet to be understood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
1 minute ago, pallidin said:

God or not, it doesn't matter.

Well excuse the pun, but the HIggs Boson would beg to differ with you on that one. 

1 minute ago, pallidin said:

What does matter is that you are refusing to recognize that the equation specified is presumed true for only 3% of Reality.

I am not refusing it, I am not sure what it is you are exactly referring to, is this a statistic that someone has come up with? Where did this figure come from and who applied it to what? 

1 minute ago, pallidin said:

That is, there is much, much yet to be understood.

Indeed, that is not being denied, however that does not mean what we do know is wrong, or that it would change dramatically, fundamentals are fundamentals, God does not have to be in the gaps either, the discoveries that have lead to the knowledge we have today still do not need God to exist at all. There is no good reason at all to think God remains as some sort of hidden mechanism behind the things we are yet to understand such as dark matter, or what really lies at the center of a black hole, these questions are brought on by other discoveries in science, not prayer, they are not miraculous holes that we have no hope of explaining nor do they indicate something like the supernatural is anything more than fable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin

Not saying that what we know now in QM is wrong, rather extremely incomplete as admitted by those involved with it.

However, if you believe that "we live, we die, and get eaten by worms" is your summary of human existence, that's perfectly fine.

I believe otherwise.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
5 minutes ago, pallidin said:

Not saying that what we know now in QM is wrong, rather extremely incomplete as admitted by those involved with it.

That in no conceivable way lends credence to the existance of god at all. It just means the discoveries we have made are opening new doors, which is rather the very opposite of a God influence. 

5 minutes ago, pallidin said:

However, if you believe that "we live, we die, and get eaten by worms" is your summary of human existence, that's perfectly fine.

I do not need to "believe", we have observations experiments, cat scans, records and millions of experiments to tell me what happens. What all that says is our first guesses of God and the afterlife were wrong, just like how we guessed Zeus threw Lightning Bolts and Thor created Thunder with a giant hammer, we can see now how the afterlife helps us deal with grief, and why we invented it. 

5 minutes ago, pallidin said:

I believe otherwise.

That is your prerogative and many choose that for comfort. When one moves past belief and follows the evidence, a whole new picture emerges with predictions and proofs to show why it is an accurate understanding. 

That is what God actually is, a belief, a choice. One can take all the discoveries we have on board and put that giant jigsaw puzzle together to see the big picture, or one can imagine that picture to be what one wants it to be, and that is where God and the afterlife come from. Our imaginations and the utopias we create in our minds. 

Some like to say there is no proof either way, but that is wrong, there is proof of a natural Universe, there is not proof of God. What we do not have proof of is a negative, and that applies to any possible situation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin

The extraordinary principle of the Heisenberg theory, as well as the beautiful mysteries of QM, provide us with a consideration that "many things are possible"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
5 minutes ago, pallidin said:

The extraordinary principle of the Heisenberg theory, as well as the beautiful mysteries of QM, provide us with a consideration that "many things are possible"

 

Yes they do, they still utilise know factors to come to this conclusion, this does not indicate in any way that God exists, it only means we have theories that are incomplete. 

Again, this is from knowledge, driving us toward further knowledge, this is not an unexplained gap that can only be, let alone be at all answered by the God concept. It indicates that a natural Universe is the most likely option as we make discoveries and follow them to their natural conclusions. It is moving us away from the supernatural, not closer to it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
20 hours ago, DieChecker said:

~SNIP~

Do you see where my logic is going? Thousands of other gods, assumed to be false, does not make all gods, or God, false. It could very well mean the most accepted reasoning is the correct one. In which case it would be the Abrahamic God, which should be assumed to be the one actual God.

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

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.