Belief in free will is equivalent to believing in Santa Claus

a reply to: spy66

I would say our ideologies regarding spirituality sets us apart from God if he/she/it exists far more than our technological prowess which has advanced while our notion of spirituality and/or what it comprises seems to have remained in the dark ages.

a reply to: AVoiceOfReason

What you've described is Kabbalistic TzimTzum, which I suspect is how we are all part of god - and return to Godhood after death

Tzimtzum
en.wikipedia.org...

The tzimtzum or tsimtsum (Hebrew צמצום ṣimṣūm "contraction/constriction/condensation") is a term used in the Lurianic Kabbalah to explain Isaac Luria's new doctrine that God began the process of creation by "contracting" his Ein Sof (infinite) light in order to allow for a "conceptual space" in which finite and seemingly independent realms could exist. This primordial initial contraction, forming a Khalal/Khalal Hapanui ("vacant space", חלל הפנוי‎) into which new creative light could beam, is denoted by general reference to the tzimtzum. In contrast to earlier, Medieval Kabbalah, this made the first creative act a concealment/Divine exile rather than unfolding revelation. This dynamic crisis-catharsis in the Divine flow is repeated throughout the Lurianic scheme. Because the tzimtzum results in the "empty space" in which spiritual and physical Worlds and ultimately, free will can exist, God is often...

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: spy66

I would say our ideologies regarding spirituality sets us apart from God if he/she/it exists far more than our technological prowess which has advanced while our notion of spirituality and/or what it comprises seems to have remained in the dark ages.

Spritually it would be hard to prove because that is absolute personal.

There are different ways to use what we know to day to reason the existance of God. The probalem is that the Scientific community is laging behind in its Research. And it always will because science is Limited to the speed of light, therefore science can never know about the events prior to the Big Bang or to ever study what is outside the boundaries of Our expanding universe. Science will never know what Space was like before the Big Bang happened.

a reply to: spy66

Maybe God is also limited by the speed of light?

Hence his absentee parent act?

Science is the best tool we have at our disposal to fathom the wonders of the universe. Possibly worth keeping in mind that organised religious practice(especially Christianity) has been subverting scientists and attempting to silence them from voicing there opinions based on the facts available for the better part of the last 2000 odd years.

As to the concept of the Big Bang, or what happened before it, that would be nothing, because time did not exist previously. Keep in mind that its only one of many theories as to where/how our universe originated/came into being but it is the most accepted thus far.

a reply to: andy06shake

Your correct we don't know enough about the universe yet to know if the Christian god exists, or any other for that matter. Just be sure of one thing, the word of God is not contained in the Bible or any other religious text that Man created with all his fears and fallibility at play, that's pretty much a given.

You just gave a logical reason why God doesn't exist, but when I give a logical reason why free will is an illusion, you end up using the "We can't know anything for sure" argument, when you just stated that the christian god doesn't exist based on the evidence.

So basically you're saying 1+1=2 and you agree, but when I say 2+2=4 you use the argument I mentioned that we can't know anything. See where the problem can be? What I'm trying to so is discuss facts that are as solid as possible based on the info we have.

a reply to: Andy1144

I don't have any definitive answers, just supposition laced with contradictions, based on an incomplete understanding.

The reason i call into question the Christian interpretation of God is because of lack of evidence to suggest such(to date), lack being the operative word there.

For all intents and purposes 1+1=2.

You tell me one thing through that you can state unequivocally for sure pertaining to the subject that cannot be called into question?

End of the day its all just swings and roundabouts really.

a reply to: andy06shake


It's true, but there are an infinite amount of micro forces which are completely subconscious to you and dictate your actions. Can you even see the synapses and quantum particles are there without the scientific evidence?
How you can have control of the macro when you have no idea whats even going on, on the micro, and the micro dictates the macro?

So we can't make decisions when we have no idea what makes them and forms them. Suggesting we can is like saying god exists. And you know thats unlikely right?

a reply to: Andy1144

"How you can have control of the macro when you have no idea whats even going on, on the micro, and the micro dictates the macro?"

How indeed.

Working along that premise it would seem to stand to reason that the Pico scale dictates/interacts with the micro scale in the same way. All the way back down to the quantum foam where cause and effect do not matter in the same way they do at our scale of reality.

a reply to: andy06shake

My statement means that macro control is really an illusion because its controlled by unconscious processes completely out of our knowing and control.

a reply to: Andy1144

I thought you wished to stay with in the realm of what little factual evidence we have surrounding the topic.

Given that there is no proof to suggest such, kind of sounds like a leap of faith.

Not that i have a problem with that, but you see how easy it is to drift of into "What Ifs" ?

That because we lack any kind of meaningful empirical constants pertaining to our actual existence, all though im lead to believe they are rather hard to come by inside our 3 dimensional box.

a reply to: andy06shake

I thought you wished to stay with in the realm of what little factual evidence we have surrounding the topic.

I am, tell me where I was wrong or assuming something?

Given that there is no proof to suggest such, kind of sounds like a leap of faith.

Proof of what?

Not that i have a problem with that, but you see how easy it is to drift of into "What Ifs" ?

Yes, but I didn't state a hypothesis but something that is true.

That because we lack any kind of meaningful empirical constants pertaining to our actual existence, all though im lead to believe they are rather hard to come by inside our 3 dimensional box.

But everything I'm saying is within the confinement of the 3 dimensions.

a reply to: Andy1144

"I am, tell me where I was wrong or assuming something?"

Did not say you were wrong i simply likened your assuming to a leap of faith.

"Proof of what? "

Proof we are controlled by unconscious processes completely out of our control. Proof of God or some other guiding force at play.

"Yes, but I didn't state a hypothesis but something that is true."

Sigh! That's nice, where is the proof through?

"But everything I'm saying is within the confinement of the 3 dimensions."

But you wish to understand concepts that possibly exist outwith our very 3 dimensional nature "we are controlled by unconscious processes completely out of our control.". You do see the logical problem with answers to such questions?

That being our inability to comprehend answers somewhat above our current state of awareness.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: spy66

Maybe God is also limited by the speed of light?

Hence his absentee parent act?

Science is the best tool we have at our disposal to fathom the wonders of the universe. Possibly worth keeping in mind that organised religious practice(especially Christianity) has been subverting scientists and attempting to silence them from voicing there opinions based on the facts available for the better part of the last 2000 odd years.

As to the concept of the Big Bang, or what happened before it, that would be nothing, because time did not exist previously. Keep in mind that its only one of many theories as to where/how our universe originated/came into being but it is the most accepted thus far.

I personally think religion and the existance of God are two way different aspect of reality. Religion is something man does. Religions is like prehistoric politics that have evolved into how man thinks religion should be practiced today.

The other part you mention about time; can not be true. Time is not something that just starts. Time is infinite. This means that time at its basic core is a absolut constant. Our universe had a beginning, but time existed before Our universe was formed. Its just that the timeline prior to the Big Bang was different before Our universe was formed.

Our universes timeline is based on expantion/change rate. This might not be the case when it comes to the Space that existed prior to the beginning of Our universe.

a reply to: andy06shake

Did not say you were wrong i simply likened your assuming to a leap of faith.

Ok, where exactly do you think I did that.

Sigh! That's nice, where is the proof through?

That you have no idea there are trillions or more micro processes happening? It's self explanatory.

But you wish to understand concepts that possibly exist outwith our very 3 dimensional nature "we are controlled by unconscious processes completely out of our control.". You do see the logical problem with answers to such questions?

Decisions that we make are within our understanding of the universe, therefore I don't need to assume it's something that is outside of it.

Proof of God or some other guiding force at play.

Sorry you lost me there.

a reply to: spy66

Current models suggest that there was no space-time before the big bang hence no time, its kind of part and package of the parcel since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences.

There are other theories open to interpretation.

a reply to: Andy1144

I give up, i require alcohol , my head hurts.

a reply to: andy06shake


It's okay, I guess it isn't possible to understand something new when the way of thinking is very different. Im speaking for people in general.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: spy66

Current models suggest that there was no space-time before the big bang hence no time, its kind of part and package of the parcel since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences.

There are other theories open to interpretation.

As i stated before science is laging behind.

Our models will never be able to state anything prior to the Big Bang. The Plank theory is as Close to the beginning as science can come.

IF there were no Spacetime prior to the formation of Our universe. In what Space did Our universe appear in?

- If there was no Space there would be no Space present for Our universe to occupy. Our universe needs to occupy Space to exist.

Our universe....the singularity would need to occupy a Space to exist and expand.

a reply to: spy66

"IF there were no Spacetime prior to the formation of Our universe. In what Space did Our universe appear in?"

The theory attempts to explain the formation of the universe, not where it came from, but the implication is that there was no form of space-time before its emergence.

Have you read Stephen Hawking Brief History of Time, that book touches on the subject and explains the concept far better than i can.

Possibly one universe ending simply spawns the next one. Possibly there are an infinite amount of universe that interact with one other in an unseen manner keeping in mind we can only observe 5% of our own universe.

a reply to: Andy1144

Maybe the problem is we are trying to understand not something new but something very, very old.