Science fails to exclude God

reply to post by randyvs


Why does it have to be a god then? Why couldn't the origin be a big ball of energy? Or maybe they are one in the same, and man just wrote some crap he made up.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by randyvs

 

Why does it have to be a god then? Why couldn't the origin be a big ball of energy? Or maybe they are one in the same, and man just wrote some crap he made up.

I know one of the main reasons for me is that I find it hard to comprehend that a universe vastly more complex than myself would not also possess a conscious awareness vastly more complex than my own.

A higher consciousness, one apart from my own, seems more consistent and explanatory in light of the precision of ingredients required to produce life--including conscious life--than a non-self aware universe that just dumbly and perpetually combusts cosmic life-seed.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by TKDRL

 

When asked who created god, the answer is nothing, go always was. Why? How is it logical to believe that god always was, and not that the universe always was

The answer is nothing created God because for God to be creatred what that suggests is an infinite number of
retro- reproductions and that's also impossible. So there must be a causeless cause somewhere. What else would be a causeless cause other than God ?

edit on 4-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

youve just expressed something that has been troubling me for a while,ive FELT what your saying but never been able to express it. Thankyou , something exists that is not subject to the notion of creation? is that what your saying.

reply to post by TKDRL


This is where I say and that is up to you. You decide either way because that's what it's all about concerning
God in the first place. He left no direct evidence of his existence. He wants you to believe by faith. Christ once said, "you are blessed for having seen me, you believe. Will not those who havn't seen yet believe be even more
blessed" ? I figure it this way. If we manage to trust and believe thru all sadness and pain in this brief moment of existence. Then the less likely we are to turn our backs on him when we are become immortal and there with him. Because once all this dealing with the fallen ones is over. Those who chose God and the other 2/3 of heavens angelsn won't be as likely to disobey him again. We will have the will to do so if we choose. Does that sound like a tyrant?

The Doctors wife

Yes. Boundlessly.


The Gut

I always find your explanations astounding partner. Definetely a very well read well rounded response.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by bogomil

 

What makes God a tyrant in your view ?

A whooping something in China would most likely be a cough.

edit on 4-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

You can't possibly be thinking of Japan, when you consider science running wild, without the advisement of God.

edit on 4-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

We COULD start with genesis 2, which is all about obedience, and where the old schizoid even had the bad taste to say: "Now see, what you made me do" after he'd messed things up.....

.....and then work our way forwards to blood sprinkled in the temple,.....

......the 'righteous' Lot, who offered his daughters to be gangbanged, who apparantly was an alcoholic and who later had sex with his daughters himself, but who was spared from 'god's wrath, while the rest of his town was turned to cinder....

........his 'bet' with satan on the extent of Job's grovelling for him no matter what (nobody ever says anything about the thousand of people and animals, who had to die for no reason, except to prove a point)..........

I take it, that you are a VERY selective bible-reader and if you're forced to read such as this just mentioned, you probably have some 'explanations', which I'm looking forward to hear in your next post to me.

Originally posted by The GUT

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by randyvs

 

Why does it have to be a god then? Why couldn't the origin be a big ball of energy? Or maybe they are one in the same, and man just wrote some crap he made up.

I know one of the main reasons for me is that I find it hard to comprehend that a universe vastly more complex than myself would not also possess a conscious awareness vastly more complex than my own.

A higher consciousness, one apart from my own, seems more consistent and explanatory in light of the precision of ingredients required to produce life--including conscious life--than a non-self aware universe that just dumbly and perpetually combusts cosmic life-seed.

Zeus, Brahma and Woden would qualify, to mention some of the 3.500 candidates.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by randyvs

 

Why does it have to be a god then? Why couldn't the origin be a big ball of energy? Or maybe they are one in the same, and man just wrote some crap he made up.

Because, forgive me for sounding possibly naive and utterly cliched, i dont see why big balls of enery would produce things like The Mona lisa, and Bach's toccata and fugue in d minor. This is MY god/no god dilemma.

reply to post by bogomil


Old Schizoid ? Well what happened to tyrant ? Why don't you just unload them all at once right here and now? Get it off your chest in your wonderfully wise and well thought manner. The only warning I give you is one that most of the mentally handicapped already know. That being, that the chances of you having to answer to them before your maker? With no defense team at your side ? Are at best, a coin toss and that's being generous.
So go right ahead and make yourself look wise as you sit in judgement of God ? I'm sure it won't last forever.

Or perhaps you could remain on topic?


Oh and explanations rarely come to disrespectful insults. At least that's my social observation.





Click on you tube underneath the video to watch.

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by The GUT

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by randyvs

 

Why does it have to be a god then? Why couldn't the origin be a big ball of energy? Or maybe they are one in the same, and man just wrote some crap he made up.

I know one of the main reasons for me is that I find it hard to comprehend that a universe vastly more complex than myself would not also possess a conscious awareness vastly more complex than my own.

A higher consciousness, one apart from my own, seems more consistent and explanatory in light of the precision of ingredients required to produce life--including conscious life--than a non-self aware universe that just dumbly and perpetually combusts cosmic life-seed.

Zeus, Brahma and Woden would qualify, to mention some of the 3.500 candidates.

edit on 4-6-2011 by bogomil because: typo and pasting

That's right. But most of 'em only made it to the first cut as far as likely candidates are concerned.

So glad to see you contemplating God, though, bogomil.

I got to see god once

It was beautiful

reply to post by TKDRL

To hell with any god that can ignore my pain, only people with real migrains can even know what I am talking about. People complain about headaches, imagine a headache times 10000, with light and sound sensitivity. Every tiny bit of light, or sound makes it worse. Have you ever had your brain hurt so much you vomit about every 30 minutes. That was my childhood. god didn't think I was worthy to help, so to hell with god if it exists.

Think anyone burning in Hell right now for hating God would trade that for a never-ending life of migraines? God didn't give His Son Jesus another option when He prayed for one in the garden the night before He was hung naked on a Roman cross with His entrails seeping out of His rib cage.

But you hate him because He refused to jump when you said "Jump dammit and get rid of these headaches!".

reply to post by randyvs


You wrote:

["Old Schizoid ? Well what happened to tyrant ?"]

It's different facets of the same basic condition. Jahveh has a classical megalomania/paranoia syndrom, which normally would fall under the heading of schizophrenia. He alternates between delusions of grandeur, where he repeatedly informs everybody of his superior and exclusive status/nature and the paranoic rages leading to genocide, when he feels threatened by other 'gods'.

But in Jahveh's case there's an additional factor: He has multiple personalities. He actually BELIEVES in the role, he's playing at the monment. When he's the 'loving father', he's oooh so loving (in spite of being THE arch-example of an incompetent parent), when he's the warrior-lord, he's revengeful and merciless.

And that's just ONE set of multiple personalities. There's another one in the trinity-delusion. You see, the trigunic concept is very old, older than Pauline christianity, which just hijacked it and deformed it into nonsense, where the original asian versions are rather sane and useful. But that's another story.

A bit long, but you DID ask.

Quote: ["Get it off your chest in your wonderfully wise and well thought manner."]

Such praise (of wisdom etc) coming from your direction is a bit surprising. But thanks.

And btw I'm not really a disciple of the psychological school of 'getting things off my chest'. It has always struck me as something hysterical types do.

Quote: ["The only warning I give you is one that most of the mentally handicapped already know."]

Yes, I know you guys like to preach for the mentally handiccaped. It's there you have your greatest chances of converting someone.

Quote: ["That being, that the chances of you having to answer to them before your maker? With no defense team at your side ? Are at best, a coin toss and that's being generous."]

You mean, YOU have one confused book, proclaiming itself true (and with that wonderful logic christians have....that ofcourse MAKES it true), in contrast to all the real knowledge in the world and that would give a 50/50 chance of who is 'right'.

Where did you learn that kind of arranging statistics? A christian diploma mill?

Quote: ["So go right ahead and make yourself look wise as you sit in judgement of God ?"]

Sofar the only thing I'm sitting in judgement of is a character in a fictive book. Or at least ficitve in the sense, that it's not describing any things correctly.

The good news (as you guys like to call it) are, that Jahveh most likely did exist. The bad news are, that you've been scammed. He's actually a very ambitious demon with some talent for PR and absolutely no morals.

Quote: ["I'm sure it won't last forever."]

I'll possibly tire of doing it eventually.

Quote: ["Or perhaps you could remain on topic?"]

You mean like you just did in this post? I think, I can do even better: Let's see some evidence for the absurd claims you made in OP. I can promise you, I'll relate seriously to such material.

PS I don't have the technical possibilities of looking at web-videos.

reply to post by The GUT


You wrote:

["That's right. But most of 'em only made it to the first cut as far as likely candidates are concerned."]

That's politics for you. It's not always the best man winning, it's the most ruthless.

Quote: ["So glad to see you contemplating God, though, bogomil."]

What a jolly euphemism. What I actually am doing is to examine the 'god' concept. When I contemplate, it's in one of the heathen and undoubtly sinful ways from the east.

reply to post by bogomil

What I actually am doing is to examine the 'god' concept. When I contemplate, it's in one of the heathen and undoubtly sinful ways from the east.

"God damn that Age of Enlightenment". Perhaps it was the will of God that people were "created" sceptical?

On a serious note, i think causality is an assumption, and one that always leads of an infinite regression, there are plenty of other possibilities to existence; infinity being one of them.

All we can do is entertain possibilities; some are more logical than others. But all are illogical in the sense that it's on a scale beyond our imagination, perhaps we are too "young" to understand, or perhaps we never will.



What about mathematics; this can be spiritual and enlightening too. Maybe "GOD" is a fundamental mathematical key, the semantics of "GOD" certainly seem to be convoluted in this modern era of philosophy.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by TKDRL

 

To hell with any god that can ignore my pain, only people with real migrains can even know what I am talking about. People complain about headaches, imagine a headache times 10000, with light and sound sensitivity. Every tiny bit of light, or sound makes it worse. Have you ever had your brain hurt so much you vomit about every 30 minutes. That was my childhood. god didn't think I was worthy to help, so to hell with god if it exists.

Think anyone burning in Hell right now for hating God would trade that for a never-ending life of migraines? God didn't give His Son Jesus another option when He prayed for one in the garden the night before He was hung naked on a Roman cross with His entrails seeping out of His rib cage.

But you hate him because He refused to jump when you said "Jump dammit and get rid of these headaches!".

Aaaaah, but that's one way of arranging the scenario of the unknown with the help of of a persuasive narrative, where pre-determined answers are the only outcome.

Here's another version. The buddhist one (I'm not a buddhist, but I can spin a yarn as well as the next guy):

All the observable and experienced suffering in a universe, which got off badly from the start (the architect was somewhat incompetent) at least has a motivational effect: "Let's get the heck out of this insanity; and hey, I can already see and feel this wonderful white light, the buddhists are talking about, ......now when I have come to the conclusion, that it wasn't ME starting this mess".

Language with memory capacity (and the construction of our hands) is, what's made mankind what it is. We can talk things into place. That is, until reality overtakes us.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


You wrote:

[""God damn that Age of Enlightenment". Perhaps it was the will of God that people were "created" sceptical?"]

Those sometimes pre-destination and determinism claims from christians, of 'opposition' being a part of the original blueprint, have some fascinating feedback options on the nature of this Jahveh. The submission of mankind is sweeter to Jahveh, if it has been preceded by humiliation and oppression.

An allegory (the waterhole of many theists).

I've been told, that de-conditioned young christian girls often are the perfect submissive partners in bondage relationships. "I've been a naughty girl, spank me". They still carry psychological guilt with them.

Well knowing that my opinion won't be popular with some christians, I'm afraid that my impression of Jahveh is like that. He enjoys having a master-role in emotional vampirism. Liking mankind to ask for being spanked.

While this is a colourful way of presenting it, it's actually a sound optional perspective of some of the central parts of Pauline christianity.

Quote: ["All we can do is entertain possibilities; some are more logical than others. But all are illogical in the sense that it's on a scale beyond our imagination, perhaps we are too "young" to understand, or perhaps we never will."]

After the above free-flight speculation on the emotional motivation of Jahveh, it's probably more thread-topic related to consider the rational implications in Jahvehs character. OP did include a lot of 'science' (albeit in a special way). And while I personally entertain many ideas of the high weirdness outside common, mundane existence, I feel it's a mistake to call this 'god', when there are so many other useful words available.

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. A lot of religionism has turned into semantic fights.

So trying to get this thread straight on topic again, I can offer my participation in a process where Jahveh eventually can be positioned in such a way, that both religious AND rational (science/logic) perspectives can be applied (after all it was OP, which dragged science into it).

A semantic compromise and ofcourse the intrinsic rational components of the concept at hand.

I am eagerly awating responses.

There are all sorts of 'things' to be experienced in this 'world'. Science is a 'thing' the same as any 'other' thing.
What though has put those 'things' here? And where is 'here'.? And what is it that 'experiences' those 'things'?

Science will never discover what is doing the discovering.
What drives humans is what drives the whole universe.

Concsiousness is knowing itself.
It does this knowingly or unknowingly.

Nothing exists outside consciousness.
Science exists within 'God', as all 'things' do.

For those who wish to move on beyond the endless, circular debate between science and religion, I invite you to spend time exploring the UNIFICATION of religion and science by visiting:
smphillips.8m.com...
and studying (yes, not reading but studying) what amounts to a new form of knowledge that achieves the integration of the mystical insights of the world's religions with cutting edge research in particle physics, DNA and music (among other things). You will discover there overwhelming, astounding evidence tantamount to proof of the existence of a transcendental, mathematical design inherent in the sacred geometries of various religions, connecting the microcosm to the macrocosm. Far from disproving God or ignoring the concept as irrelevant, the author of this site demonstrates that science has in fact discovered His "handiwork" (so to speak) but fails to recognize the profound significance of its discoveries. This is because scientists do not know how to recognize the divine blueprint appearing in, for example, the mathematics of superstring theory and musical theory (and, even if they did recognize it, they would be loath to admit publicly in fear of disapproval by their colleagues). The author of this website, a former theoretical physicist, has no such qualms. He shows you what this blueprint is and how it is exactly consistent with various scientific facts and discoveries. Moreover, he reveals without ANY arm waving explanations but with direct, mathematical proof what the religious contexts are for these facts.

His work is intellectually challenging and demanding but entirely rigorous. If you want to explore the true theory of everything (not merely matter) - how a universal, mathematical pattern hinted at by esoteric traditions pervades different "wholes", like superstrings, musical scales, DNA, the human skeleton, etc - then this is for you. Only, it is NOT a theory, as you will learn......

reply to post by bogomil

Aaaaah, but that's one way of arranging the scenario of the unknown with the help of of a persuasive narrative, where pre-determined answers are the only outcome.

Sorry, I'm stubborn, please keep reminding me that I need to keep my thoughts and opinions to myself. I apologize for sharing them with everyone, you especially must feel disgusted having to read over and over again in this forum my opinions and thoughts.

My bad, I keep forgetting that I need to shut up and never share them.

The other day i had a Jehovah's witness on my doorstep.
We talked for a while: Then i asked him, are you trying to get me to believe the same things as you are?
Then he said: Yes.
And i said: what are the odds of you changing your believes based on what i am saying.
He said: No chance at all.
Then i said: There you go.