Science fails to exclude God

reply to post by spy66


you wrote:

["0 can never = -A + A physically, only on paper.

Just like -A + A never can = 0 physically."]

Forces and energies belonging in the same category, but being opposite polarized with the same intensity creates a zero-field.

Quote: ["Because energy can not be created or destroyed. But it can be compressed."]

On this side of event horizon.

Quote: ["If you take the total energy mass of our universe at present time (all that is solid and emitted) and weigh it. It will = the energy mass/weight of the singularity when it was formed."]

As I said in the earlier post, the equation of cosmos contains more than two components. In an hypothetical situation of 'something from nothing' we can speculate on which of these components are each others polarized counterparts, and if 'dualism' shouldn't be called 'trialism' instead. Speculations on this from idealist direction is found in tibetan buddhism, tantra and Gurdjieff's 'The fourth way'.

Quote: ["I just have to add one more thing. If you think something can come from nothing. Then why can't religion be right when God create from nothing?"]

What I propose is a guarded metaphysical approach, mainly only indicating a direction sofar. My suggestion carries science/logic/objective procedure as long as possible.

Religion throws science/logic/objective-procedure out with the bathwater and claim pre-mature guesses or fantasies to be 'truth'. Very often killing somebody in the chain of argumenting about it.

When it comes to the level of the invasive missionary mindset, I categorize this as a mental illness. I have as a private person a LOT of weird ideas, I just don't feel they must be a world-ideology.

reply to post by Atione


You wrote:

["HOW MUCH OF THE UNIVERSE CAN YOU PROVE AS UTTERLY TRUE AS A PERCENTAGE?"]

Gravity is a safe bet as is the strong nuclear force as being so close to a cosmic constant as you can get it. Why are you asking such meaningless questions?

Will an uncertainty of 10 followed by some zillion zeroes chance 'prove' anything for you.

This is a semantic game based on inductive reasoning.

Originally posted by NewlyAwakened

Originally posted by bogomil
The unknown, the un-nameable, the void, infinity....People are less inclined to invade each others lives or to kill each other for such labels.

No, but instead they'll come up with other "ideals" to kill each other over (As Jung put it, "You can take away a man's gods, but only to give him others in return."), and have even less scruples in doing so because there's no point at which they get afraid of God and say "Maybe this is a bit excessive".

Hence WWI, WWII. Approximately 9 million and 60 million dead, respectively. Wars which were fought over "ideals", not God.

I will never tire of pointing this out when people associate religion and barbarism in a manner that implies that without religion there would be less barbarism, something that history has shown to be false, a history everybody with a high school education knows and yet for some reason many choose to ignore when debating.

For my part, I do not deny that much blood has been shed for religion. I am only putting the proper weight on the other side of the scale. That weight just happens to be heavier. Oops.

So I've said my piece. Carry on everybody.

edit on 9-6-2011 by NewlyAwakened because: (no reason given)

I'm not opposing ideology per se or any specific ideology. I'm opposing ALL types of invasive missioning.

The effect of invasive missioning is most clearly seen in common social life, but certainly also in some more abstract academic contexts, where it has done much harm.

reply to post by randyvs


You wrote:

["How smart can he be to sit in judgement of God as if there's nothing to fear ? Total egomaniac.
It's called, "The Wrath of God " and we're not supposed to want anything to do with it."]

First of all, you have denied to go a round of 'reality-check' with me. Is that being 'smart'?

Secondly you expect anything to be considered on YOUR premises? Is that 'smart also?

For anyone else than a fanatic supporting your opinions, you're saying: "I'm right, because I'm right; and to be smart is to be right, because you right".

As Eric Cartmando put it (that's for South Park lovers): "How do I reach theeeeze children?"

Where the heck do YOU start from? The bible? But when it's demonstrated to be nonsense, you say it's still 'truth'. How comes?

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by ufoman99

 

You find fault with the statement? Nothing but truth there and I'll back it all up. Many in noway implys all. Or science as a whole. Also what I think on that truth has no bearing on that truth.

edit on 9-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

So refine your position. In the communication with me (and others), you are flexible on this point (and its implications) to an almost absurd degree.

Just like bible-interpretation. It's so vague and confuse, than it's possible to 'defend' 34.000 different positions on it.

Originally posted by randyvs
Everybody up. Look what just came in with a new member. Mitchl61. Synchronicity ?
Forgive me, but does this suggest to anyone else that science dosn't know squat of what it claims to know?
At least about the universe?

And now you can thus justified fill the knowledge-gaps with your fantasies?

Originally posted by blackrain17
If you are a true scientist, how can you respect religion and their god or gods?

Let's state the facts, due to religion, many scientists were treated like criminals or witches even. Some of them were brutally killed for their beliefs. Religion probably detered progress accusing some great discoveries as false or calling some inventions as the devil's work.

For Example, who is the father of modern science? Did you say Galileo? Well, how did he spend his Golden years of his life due to religion?

True. Something like 1500 years of 'truth/reality'-seeking stamped down in the christian-domimated areas. Even the moslems were occasionally better.

reply to post by spy66


You wrote: ["I hardly doubt that all the weapons of mass destruction are created by priests."]

The world's most technologically advanced weaponry is in hands of the presently most aggressive nation, strongly influenced by religious fanatics.

reply to post by sirnex


Thank you for posting the documentary, i really enjoyed it.
What i get from the video is that electrons and anti electrons appear at the same time and make what 'appear' to be particles.
The particles are in fact appearances, appearances that appear and disappear instantaneously. The flashing of the on and off is seen not by going really small to see the proof of it, but by looking around you, everything is apparent.
The appearence and disappearence must be present (appearing) in something, the nothingness.
The nothingness out of which all appearences appear.

Are you seeing it? Is it appearing to you right now?
Are you not the nothingness in which it all appears?

You are the conscious presence in which every apparent ( flashing electrons appearings and disappearing ) particle appears in. Everything that is seen is seen by the space. The apparent particles of this 'material world' are born out of the nothingness and are witnessed by the nothingness and die into the nothingness continually.

The space however remains untouched by the appearences.
The space, nothingness, is awareness, consciousness. It is what makes it all known.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
The apparent particles of this 'material world' are born out of the nothingness and are witnessed by the nothingness and die into the nothingness continually.

The space however remains untouched by the appearences.

That's not correct. Did you miss the part of the documentary where they measured the effect that these virtual particles have upon the movement of electrons? They not only measured it but the results matched their predictions to a staggering level of accuracy. Now that is good science.

Virtual particles that appear out of nothingness in vacuums are physically real, they are not just "appearances".

reply to post by Crayfish


The particles appear real for an instant and then disappear. Can virtual particles be 'real'?
The virtual particles are the electron/anti electron appearing and disappearing.
What though is seeing, is aware of that 'apparent' appearence?

Consciousness is the aware space within which all the flashing happens.

reply to post by Crayfish


Every 'thing' that you see before you is appearing and disappearing, flashing on and off. Except it only appears to be happening 'in front of you'. Really, it is in you, as you. All of it.
When you are in what we call deep sleep there is nothingness. No time, no space, no gravity, no objects, no thoughts, no body. No 'thing'.
That No thing is you. When you are in deep sleep no objects appear to exist.
Out of that nothing comes all that is seen, apparent virtual particles, that appear out of the nothingness and disappear back into the nothingness.
There is nothing but nothingness.
But this nothingness is pure intelligence and it is what you are.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by Crayfish

 

The particles appear real for an instant and then disappear. Can virtual particles be 'real'?
The virtual particles are the electron/anti electron appearing and disappearing.
What though is seeing, is aware of that 'apparent' appearence?

Consciousness is the aware space within which all the flashing happens.

edit on 10-6-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

A while ago you and I debated about this. I used 'Samsara = Nirvana' (which you consequently gave a wrong origin, didn't understand and later have ignored).

The implications of the 'observer-created reality' are, that everything manifesting through 'observation' IS reality.

But there are some conditions to meet first. 'Reality' must then be acknowledged to be a 'relative reality' fitting to a specific perspective, and it must be known, who/what the 'observer' is.

PS Guess I have to repeat, that 'observer' is a very imprecise word for what the model contains. Interactor would be more suitable.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by Crayfish

 

Every 'thing' that you see before you is appearing and disappearing, flashing on and off. Except it only appears to be happening 'in front of you'. Really, it is in you, as you. All of it.
When you are in what we call deep sleep there is nothingness. No time, no space, no gravity, no objects, no thoughts, no body. No 'thing'.
That No thing is you. When you are in deep sleep no objects appear to exist.
Out of that nothing comes all that is seen, apparent virtual particles, that appear out of the nothingness and disappear back into the nothingness.
There is nothing but nothingness.
But this nothingness is pure intelligence and it is what you are.

edit on 10-6-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

All very well, but what has that to do with 'god' and similar religious concepts? Is there a kind of super-dualism between in- and outside event horizon, where cosmos is the inside 'observer' and 'god' the outside observer?

reply to post by bogomil


Like the interface, the screen on/in which it all appears.
The interface builds an image collected of the virtual particles. The interface can get confused looking at on/off and imagine think that these are two different states but they are not, they are both.
The interface, if it takes the reading correctly will see the appearences as a true refection, as is, without opposition.
However the interface does not take true readings from the appearing appearences because the interface does not recognize itself as the interface. The one that is doing the measuring is measuring from somewhere to somewhere. When in fact the interface is the only one, all 'others' are appearences.
No mesurement is needed when you recognize yourself as the interface because the interface is already complete.

reply to post by bogomil


There is no inside the observer and outside the observer!
There is the observation, there is the experience and that is that.

Everything else is pure fantasy.
You can create whatever you want out of it.

reply to post by spy66

I explained why.

No, you've given me a couple scenarios and then told me that it *must* require a creator. You never explained why it *must* be a benevolent intelligent creator behind it rather than natural forces we've yet to technologically understand in our species scientific infancy.

Is there a storm God?
I am not saying there is one, You dont understand the concept. because you dont know how to use it.
I said it was a concept i use.

Why would not one complex physical process not require a benevolent intelligent entity behind it, but another *must*?

That is a call that has to be made by the user. Most often these calls are based on moral values. Not morality.
Religion is created by human inspiration, and i have a impression they contradict each other in many cases. And often moral values contradict moral actions.

Without the religion, there wouldn't be the deity behind it. At least this is what archeological evidence and recorded history shows us.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by bogomil

 

Like the interface, the screen on/in which it all appears.
The interface builds an image collected of the virtual particles. The interface can get confused looking at on/off and imagine think that these are two different states but they are not, they are both.
The interface, if it takes the reading correctly will see the appearences as a true refection, as is, without opposition.
However the interface does not take true readings from the appearing appearences because the interface does not recognize itself as the interface.

edit on 10-6-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-6-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

And what is a true refection (I take it to be typo-error of 'reflection'? No worries, grammar and typing isn't the issue).

A true reflection must be evaluated to be true according to some standards.

Consciousness does not recognize consciousness because of a flawed mirror. Where did that mirror come from and who/what made it flawed?

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by bogomil

 

There is no inside the observer and outside the observer!
There is the observation, there is the experience and that is that.

Everything else is pure fantasy.
You can create whatever you want out of it.

edit on 10-6-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

You answer a question I didn't put. I asked: Where does 'god' come into this?

reply to post by bogomil


I really don't see the point trying to explain anything to a person who is a philosophical sceptic about how any of this has to do with God.
You might consider that nothing actually exists except in the mind, it sees electrons and anti electrons appearing and disappearing and makes stories out of appearances.
There is nothing solid here except your beliefs and even they are fragile.