Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not.

originally posted by: toktaylor
a reply to: Pachomius

The Universe did not always exist in the state it is now, and it started roughly 13.7 billion years ago. Many physicists believe that all the matter in our Universe was highly compressed. As to WHY it exploded, there are many theories about this; it may be that we are only one of countless universes, or there are large swaths of energy that occasionally make contact resulting in random explosions, or the universe may be stuck in eternal flux, expanding and collapsing, then exploding again under its own gravitational force like a supernova.

I am presenting the fact that that matter and energy have always existed, because they are something, and we know something must always exist, because there was never a time there was nothing. And as I’ve pointed out above, matter seems to have a lot more going for it than the God hypothesis.

Hi TT. Am using your post, to bounce some ideas. Thanks, and you don't need to respond, and please don't take this as some kind of challenge, or argument.

Seems to me : that therein is a possibility, of a microcosm of this thread, and this age-old discussion.

We see in the first paragraph :we talk of belief, theories, and a general understanding that science doesn't have all of the answers, as to this planet, and our apparent existence.
Some love to affirm, as if it is a fact, that science may eventually figure it all out.
But here, now : we just don't know.

Here, now: science not knowing, relates and resonates with various philosophical, religious, ancient texts, and deep thinkers.
It also resonates with the scientific 'Unified-Field-Theory' from the study of Quantum Mechanics, that below molecules, atoms, and strings : is a sort of 'pool of infinite probabilities'.

The answer : 'We just don't know', has been indicated and mentioned many times in this thread.


Then :we have the second paragraph, and from out of this 'pool of infinite probabilities' : all of the sudden, now we have declared some of these apparently appearing probabilities, as 'facts' ?

Does anyone else see that as conflicting ? Not relating ? Not resonating ?

QM science, some religious texts, some ancient texts, and some deep thinkers say : we just don't know .
Newtonian science, and materialistic philosophizing, asks for facts, and proof ?

How shall the twain ever meet ?

MONO





Dear readers and posters here:

What do you say, shall I request Nothin to put whatever point he has in his long long post below, to just less than a 100 words?


Okay, here goes:

Dear Nothin, for the sake of clarity and comprehensibility, just reduce whatever point you want to make to just in less than a 100 words, otherwise you are not clear with whatever point you care to portray.



Best regards,
Pachomius author of the present thread on:
"Wanted - Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not."


.

posted on Aug, 21 2020 @ 08:18 AM >> Big embedding post of Nothin

From Tok to Pachomius
The Universe did not always exist in the state it is now, and it started roughly 13.7 billion years ago. Many physicists believe that all the matter in our Universe was highly compressed. As to WHY it exploded, there are many theories about this; it may be that we are only one of countless universes, or there are large swaths of energy that occasionally make contact resulting in random explosions, or the universe may be stuck in eternal flux, expanding and collapsing, then exploding again under its own gravitational force like a supernova.

I am presenting the fact that that matter and energy have always existed, because they are something, and we know something must always exist, because there was never a time there was nothing. And as I’ve pointed out above, matter seems to have a lot more going for it than the God hypothesis.



From Nothin to Tok
Hi TT. Am using your post, to bounce some ideas. Thanks, and you don't need to respond, and please don't take this as some kind of challenge, or argument.

Seems to me : that therein is a possibility, of a microcosm of this thread, and this age-old discussion.

We see in the first paragraph :we talk of belief, theories, and a general understanding that science doesn't have all of the answers, as to this planet, and our apparent existence.
Some love to affirm, as if it is a fact, that science may eventually figure it all out.
But here, now : we just don't know.

Here, now: science not knowing, relates and resonates with various philosophical, religious, ancient texts, and deep thinkers.
It also resonates with the scientific 'Unified-Field-Theory' from the study of Quantum Mechanics, that below molecules, atoms, and strings : is a sort of 'pool of infinite probabilities'.


The answer : 'We just don't know', has been indicated and mentioned many times in this thread.


Then :we have the second paragraph, and from out of this 'pool of infinite probabilities' : all of the sudden, now we have declared some of these apparently appearing probabilities, as 'facts' ?

Does anyone else see that as conflicting ? Not relating ? Not resonating ?

QM science, some religious texts, some ancient texts, and some deep thinkers say : we just don't know .
Newtonian science, and materialistic philosophizing, asks for facts, and proof ?

How shall the twain ever meet ?

( Dont really know these things. They are merely opinion/belief/temporary ideas/observations/thoughts/concepts ).

Have more questions than answers.
( Am kinda suspicious of those whom have more answers than questions... )

[ End of Nothin's post ]

a reply to: Pachomius

No thanks.
Betcha $5 the post that was c&p'd, was not even read, let alone comprehended.

GO PLACIDLY amid the noise and the haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence.

As far as possible, without surrender, be on good terms with all persons.

Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even to the dull and the ignorant; they too have their story. Avoid loud and aggressive persons; they are vexatious to the spirit.

If you compare yourself with others, you may become vain or bitter, for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself.

Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans. Keep interested in your own career, however humble; it is a real possession in the changing fortunes of time.

Exercise caution in your business affairs, for the world is full of trickery. But let this not blind you to what virtue there is; many persons strive for high ideals, and everywhere life is full of heroism.

Be yourself. Especially do not feign affection. Neither be cynical about love; for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment, it is as perennial as the grass.

Take kindly the counsel of the years, gracefully surrendering the things of youth.

Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune. But do not distress yourself with dark imaginings. Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness. Beyond a wholesome discipline, be gentle with yourself.

You are a child of the universe no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be. And whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life, keep peace in your soul.

With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world.
Be cheerful. Strive to be happy.

By Max Ehrmann © 1927

a reply to: Nothin

Almost 100 years and I don't think any body has beat the Desiderata.

A funny thing happened to me about seven years ago.

I was thinking "What's that wonderful thing I read in the '70s?"
So I did google searches until I found it.
Then I was like "What? 1927? Isn't it way older than that?"

In 1959 or 1960, the Reverend Frederick Kates, rector of Saint Paul's Church in Baltimore, Maryland, included "Desiderata" in a compilation of devotional materials for his congregation. The compilation included the church's foundation date, "Old Saint Paul's Church, Baltimore AD 1692," which readers subsequently took, and sometimes still do take, to be the date of the poem's composition.
wikipedia

I still get confused over the date.

a reply to: pthena
It's sort of lonely.
Ain't it?

a reply to: Phage

It is.
It really is.

a reply to: pthena

It took me a while to appreciate that guy.

MONO



Dear everyone including the derailers here:


I care to share with you all one factor very crucially important in resolving the issue God exists or not, God in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.


Here is what you guys are all missing all the time in your posts here, namely: the distinction between the realm of thoughts inside your mind and the realm of everything that exists in concrete reality in the realm of the world of things outside and independent of your thoughts inside your mind.


Take this post from Nothin,* and see that it is always inside his mind, and prescinding from the world outside his mind, for example, in the neighborhood where humans with the peculiar feature of being homo sapiens, they appreciate babies and roses and take care of their nose.

Anyone talking about babies and roses and the nose on our face, talking only inside their mind, they are missing a lot of things crucially indispensable to attain complete and the big picture of existence in all its dimensions and nuances.


Now, you will notice unless you are also not only optically blind but also cognitively blind, to wit, you do not factor in the circumstances of the five w's and one h with your thinking inside your mind, namely: the circumstances of who, what, where, when, why, and how: these circumstances are components of existence and of in particular the physical universe studied by scientists.


Think about that, and that is the cause of the so blind derailers here, like Neutron and pthena, they are always talking all inside their mind, without factoring in the concrete realities of who, what, when, where, why, and how into their derailing posts - about circular logic, and all their nonsense vacuous dishonest, un-intelligent, un-productive thinking if thinking it is at all.

.

*
posted on Aug, 21 2020 @ 08:18 AM by Nothin

Hi TT. Am using your post, to bounce some ideas. Thanks, and you don't need to respond, and please don't take this as some kind of challenge, or argument.

Seems to me : that therein is a possibility, of a microcosm of this thread, and this age-old discussion.

We see in the first paragraph :we talk of belief, theories, and a general understanding that science doesn't have all of the answers, as to this planet, and our apparent existence.
Some love to affirm, as if it is a fact, that science may eventually figure it all out.
But here, now : we just don't know.

Here, now: science not knowing, relates and resonates with various philosophical, religious, ancient texts, and deep thinkers.
It also resonates with the scientific 'Unified-Field-Theory' from the study of Quantum Mechanics, that below molecules, atoms, and strings : is a sort of 'pool of infinite probabilities'.


The answer : 'We just don't know', has been indicated and mentioned many times in this thread.


Then :we have the second paragraph, and from out of this 'pool of infinite probabilities' : all of the sudden, now we have declared some of these apparently appearing probabilities, as 'facts' ?

Does anyone else see that as conflicting ? Not relating ? Not resonating ?

QM science, some religious texts, some ancient texts, and some deep thinkers say : we just don't know .

Newtonian science, and materialistic philosophizing, asks for facts, and proof ?

How shall the twain ever meet ?

.

[ End of post ]

a reply to: pthena

Old as the hills ya say ?
Sorry for posting that date, if it's inaccurate.
Wasn't around in them-thar days, so : you know....

Any new definitions of God lately ?

a reply to: Phage

It took me a while to appreciate that guy.

He was popular when I was a kid.
I accidently heard Solitary Man on the radio.
The trumpet really hooked me.

So in 4th grade I took up trumpet playing. Never got very good at it.

Then I sort of accidently lived the song.

a reply to: pthena

Me too. 4th through 8th.
My fingers remember the patterns but I doubt my lips would still work.

For me it was Herb Alpert.

a reply to: Nothin

Any new definitions of God lately ?

Has no definition.
Needs no definition.

I was given permission to be an atheist.
But that is kind of a joke when you think about it.

a reply to: Phage

Herb Alpert you say?
I actually learned to play the running of the bulls song.

Then 10 years after not playing, I was in a music store buying a violin for one of my first wife's kids. I saw a trumpet, asked to try it, and couldn't even play a C note.

Lips go fast.

a reply to: pthena

1st and 3rd valves?

a reply to: Phage

That's the low D.
I mean the high C, open.

a reply to: pthena

The problem is putting a name to it. I was off by a full tone. I looked it up.

The pattern is there though.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: pthena

The problem is putting a name to it. I was off by a full tone. I looked it up.

The pattern is there though.

Phage admitted he was wrong.

You alright buddy?

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Better than most.

a reply to: Phage

I had my own custom version.
The first part was a traditional running of the bulls starting C A A.
Then transition into the rest of the Alpert song.

In band I was always a 3rd trumpet. Had to improvise for the really high notes.

a reply to: pthena

I was second.
First was so fricken good it was disgusting. Never challenged her.