Science fails to exclude God

reply to post by spy66

May i ask: if time didn't exist before our universe was created, then how was it created/formed?

Time actually does not exist at all. Not as a fourth dimension of temporal travel at least. Time is a product perception and nothing more. Sadly this means time travel will always remain in the realm of science fiction.

That means the infinite must be a constant, and how does a constant change all by it self and become time?

There's no such thing as constant in our universe. Everything is moving, changing, decaying, following the laws of entropy.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by pajoly

 

You can't exclude something that does not exist

That's why the heading reads the way it does.

Wait, did you just say God does not exist?! lol

reply to post by sirnex

Wait, did you just say God does not exist?! lol

No I don't think that's what I said Sirnex. But if you go back to pg. 7 I did blame everything on you.

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by bogomil

 

LoL i knew you were nothing but a troll.

You say that time didn't exist before our universe. But you imply that more than one dimension existed before ours? What!!! were they all constant dimensions that never had any changes?

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

Maybe I expressed myself imprecisely. This direction is terminated on my part.

Yeah, because you have no clue as to what your talking about. You cant even answer a easy question.

All my questions were very easy, but they demand some understanding to answer.

Actually it's not an easy question to answer. I've been following you two discussing this and to be really honest here, you don't really understand what he's talking about. Sometimes it's just hard to explain these concepts to someone who doesn't understand them.

reply to post by randyvs


Yea I saw that, I'm used to it by now lol

reply to post by sirnex


Here's something new . I want you guys to give an opinion
on. Especially you Sirnex. I think you might find this interesting.

reply to post by sirnex


"There's no such thing as constant in our universe. Everything is moving, changing, decaying, following the laws of entropy."
This is what we experience, this is true. Every 'thing' is moving, changing, decaying.
But, but the 'thing' that experiences all this continual change.
The presence, your presence does that change? I'm not talking about your body or mind because, yes, they are changing and moving all the time.
I mean the bit of you that is always there and has been watching the world, the mind and the body changing ever since you can remember.

That is the one constant that doesn't change in this apparent world.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


You wrote:

[""There's no such thing as constant in our universe. Everything is moving, changing, decaying, following the laws of entropy."]

That's the position of 'relative reality'. The enthropy in the strong force will take 10 with 32-zeroes-after it years to manifest. For the duration we can safely count is as a constant to rely on.

reply to post by bogomil


If you look closely bogomil it is not me that said that.
I have only quoted that statement.
The many 'things' that appear to decay are not THE reality, as you yourself have stated it is Relative Reality.
THE reality is the 'one constant' of the universe.
That Reality is the ever present, unchanging, unmoving PRESENCE that you are.
The clear window through which all of the apparent world is veiwed.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by bogomil

 

If you look closely bogomil it is not me that said that.
I have only quoted that statement.
The many 'things' that appear to decay are not THE reality, as you yourself have stated it is Relative Reality.
THE reality is the 'one constant' of the universe.
That Reality is the ever present, unchanging, unmoving PRESENCE that you are.

edit on 8-6-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

Obviously you're agreeing with the statement, so .....?

reply to post by bogomil


How am i agreeing that there is no constant in the universe?
I am very much disagreeing so...........?

Originally posted by spy66
How many dimensions where there before time came into existence. Infinite or null?

The word "before" implies a temporal position that did not exist. It is impossible to speculate about what is on the other side of any event horizon as our laws of physics do not apply.

Originally posted by spy66
And what is the difference between the infinite and null?

The infinite is when values become too large to physically exist and null is when values disappear entirely.

Originally posted by spy66
May i ask: if time didn't exist before our universe was created, then how was it created/formed?

My own theory is that the universe is a structure that exists in platonic reality rather than being of material origin. For example imagine a mathematical equation that can be proved to be true, such as 1+1=2. It has no objective reality but is a fundamental truth that exists outside of space and time and did not need to be created by anyone.

Originally posted by spy66
How can infinite or null change and become time?

The same way a piece of string end and become not a piece of string any more.

Originally posted by spy66
Because as you state: time didn't exist before our universe cam into existence.

That means the infinite must be a constant, and how does a constant change all by it self and become time?

Because the infinite values that are the attributes of an event horizon simply mark an edge of the four dimensional structure we can perceive. There could be other dimensions that transcend that edge but we can't experience them and so we cannot draw any conclusions about them.

On the original topic, there are some scientific theories that would allow for a sentient god, such as the simulated universe theory. However, science is simply evidence based thinking and there is not enough evidence to create a consensus in the scientific world that a god is a good explanation for creation.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by sirnex

 

Here's something new . I want you guys to give an opinion
on. Especially you Sirnex. I think you might find this interesting.

edit on 8-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

Looks a little over-reaching to me. The main issue here lies with the problem that the peoples of those times had no technological concepts of artificial intelligence back then in which to even create a metaphorical story of it in the bible. During those times they still believe everything revolved around the earth and the stars were a fixed background on the sky. Certainly not the beliefs of someone who would write about AI.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by sirnex

 

"There's no such thing as constant in our universe. Everything is moving, changing, decaying, following the laws of entropy."
This is what we experience, this is true. Every 'thing' is moving, changing, decaying.
But, but the 'thing' that experiences all this continual change.
The presence, your presence does that change? I'm not talking about your body or mind because, yes, they are changing and moving all the time.
I mean the bit of you that is always there and has been watching the world, the mind and the body changing ever since you can remember.

That is the one constant that doesn't change in this apparent world.

I'm not sure what you mean by the one bit of me that is always there, but then you take away the mind/body as an option for that bit because those things do indeed change. What option is left for me now to discuss?

Our only misunderstanding is that we think 'things' actually exist. When in reality ( in us/as us) they only appear to exist.
'Reality' is what you are, because it is the only 'thing' that is constant in your experience.
All 'things' that appear separate to you, are just that, appearing to you.
Each appearance never lasts, we might think that 'things' last for a certain amount of time. Yet each experience is fleeting. All we ever have is experiences that are fleeting.
Out of fleeting experiences the mind makes 'things', what it thinks is solid 'things'.
But all you will ever have is this present experience.

reply to post by sirnex

The fact that 'you' can watch the body change, the thoughts change (mind) and the world change means that none of those 'things' are you.
Whatever it is that is seeing all of these happenings is undeniably there, it is sort of like the watcher inside, behind it all.
It is said 'My mind', 'My body' , who is the owner of these. Who sees them, who says this?
Awareness itself.
The knower of the happenings, the knower.

reply to post by sirnex

"A bit over reaching"
I did feel that as well about the statement of the greatest scientific advances coming. Thanks Sirnex.

We have built a world 'out there' and then we place ourselves inside it. This is the common way of seeing the world. It is seen like this because we have been taught about the world of 'things'. We see the world first, we are blinded by the world. We feel surrounded by the world, encased.

Really though every 'thing' appears in you.
'You' being the presence awareness of this now and here.
Now+here=Nowhere.
We are nowhere having a dream like experience.

Where is five minutes from now in either direction?
Are not thoughts of five minutes ago no different from trying to remember a dream?
Willow the wisp.

Science has played a great part in showing us the world 'out there'.
Quantum physics is the newest science and it is showing the us world 'in here' and 'in now'.

We have expored outer space, now we can explore inner space.
It is all space though, there is no boundary.
How can we separate space?

reply to post by randyvs


First of all, I'll shortly return to topic. On the first six pages of the thread (which I just re-read), the positions of 'gnostic' and 'agnostic' were mentioned 11 times. As late as on the second to last page here, this has not been understood or it has been ignored by some contributors.

Imo opinion not least yourself, with your introduction of the recent link.

You're doing EXACTLY the same as your original unclear position on scientists warned about. Only in reverse. You're dragging in pseudo-explanations from really questionable 'science'-parts of older theism.

Only a 'code' is needed, everything is 'symbolic'. Symbology interpretations are worth %&#. There are several such 'secret' bible-reading methods in circulation, even competing with each other for which one is best.

A closer look at these codes demonstrate a total lack of understanding of the simplest science/logic procedure (remember these 'secret' methods claim to be rational).

An example from your link:

["The painful truth is that scientists, like everyone else, are totally clueless as to the nature of consciousness. Protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, theirs is a purely ideological stance stemming from their anti-religion prejudice. And to their eternal chagrin, the solution to the riddle of intelligence comes from the one place that they told us all to disregard, the Judeo-Christian Bible. Now, is this not the same Bible that speaks of human spirit and divine creation, the very things that scientists have long ago dismissed as mere superstition? To borrow from the scriptures, "the stone that the builders rejected has become the chief corner stone."]

If there's any place NOT to look for information on consciousness and its qualities, it's the bible. The buddhists had early ideas on this far surpassing, what christianity ever has presented. E.g. the Tibetan mahayana saying: Nirvana = Samsara, which is a whole little world of philosophy in itself. Actually being rather similar to modern hypotheses of the same kind.
Observer created existence with consciousness as the next step towards 'reality'.

But that's not my main point now. My point is, that all the admonishions on gnostic and agnostic positions have been wasted. You merrily carry gnostic theism back with you into the area of the mundane world, and expect this to be taken as an argument, when you critisize SOME scientists of doing the same the opposite way.