Science explains the existence of God.

If your God/s manifest themselves within reality, within the physical universe, there's no reason whatsoever why they couldn't be detected by science.

And gods of all flavours have a habit of manifesting themselves in billions of peoples lives every day...apparently......

Originally posted by Prezbo369
If your God/s manifest themselves within reality, within the physical universe, there's no reason whatsoever why they couldn't be detected by science.

And gods of all flavours have a habit of manifesting themselves in billions of peoples lives every day...apparently......

Remember the movie Castaway with Tom Hanks? He made a face on the volleyball and called him Wilson. We know that Wilson was the name of the brand of the volleyball but to him it became more than a volleyball, it became his confidante and constant companion. While Wilson is a tangible object, to him it was a transcendent being because of the faith placed in it. Does that mean Wilson was transcendent? To us, no.

The same with God. If you look for God solely within the observable tangibility then you miss out on the greater meaning. That has been the message of God all along, do not make Him a tangible object because you then rely solely on an inanimate object that carries no power whatsoever. Did Wilson save Tom Hanks? Perhaps so psychologically, but then Tom Hanks had to drive off into the sunset with Wilson right beside him, but it was a different Wilson. The only power Wilson had was what Tom Hanks transferred onto him. Wilson was tangible and observable, but still inanimate and manipulated.

reply to post by WarminIndy


Think of Wilson as the universe, the universe is tangible and measurable, but sometimes people put a name and persona on this thing in delusion for comfort and security.

Like you said, just because Tom Hanks believed Wilson was talking to him and he could talk to Wilson does not mean they were really talking, it was the need for companionship that made Tom Hanks believe in this delusion. The same goes with god.

You are Tom Hanks, I am the one watching this movie thinking 'This guy has completely gone off his rocker.' No offense to you or anyone else who believes in that kind of god.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

Think of Wilson as the universe, the universe is tangible and measurable, but sometimes people put a name and persona on this thing in delusion for comfort and security.

Like you said, just because Tom Hanks believed Wilson was talking to him and he could talk to Wilson does not mean they were really talking, it was the need for companionship that made Tom Hanks believe in this delusion. The same goes with god.

You are Tom Hanks, I am the one watching this movie thinking 'This guy has completely gone off his rocker.' No offense to you or anyone else who believes in that kind of god.

Ancient man was well aware of the universe. They already had star charts and many times those charts ensured their very survival. But ancient man also knew there was a beyond the universe. All laws, taboos and mores derive from a morality not found simply in looking at a star or tree.

reply to post by WarminIndy


How do you know they knew there was a beyond the universe? Not even science knows if there is anything beyond this universe. That's nonsensical because no one can perceive anything outside this universe.

Those ancient people were not 'well aware' of the universe. They were 'aware' of what they saw but just because you can see something doesn't mean you understand it. 'Well aware' means understanding, at least in my opinion.

reply to post by WarminIndy

Ancient man was well aware of the universe. They already had star charts and many times those charts ensured their very survival. But ancient man also knew there was a beyond the universe. All laws, taboos and mores derive from a morality not found simply in looking at a star or tree.

True morality doesn't come from the belief in a "guy in the sky watching, so we better behave". Religion didn't invent morality, it regulated it, according to social perceptions.

Morality comes from an individual's perception of personal assault, saying, "This is wrong." It expanded to witnessing a perceived assault of a loved one, of the tribe, of the nation, of creatures of the earth, and the earth. It has to do with how human's treat each other and the environment in which they live and depend for survival.

Morality has about as much to do with God as Santa Clause.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

How do you know they knew there was a beyond the universe? Not even science knows if there is anything beyond this universe. That's nonsensical because no one can perceive anything outside this universe.

Those ancient people were not 'well aware' of the universe. They were 'aware' of what they saw but just because you can see something doesn't mean you understand it. 'Well aware' means understanding, at least in my opinion.

Beyond this universe is other universes, hence the term, Multiverse or even Bubble Universes.

Many theories are tossed around, yet none totally concluded as fact. We are in infancy stage as far as KNOWING EXACTLY how the Universe operates. We dont even know what goes on with our own core and Planet.

Speculations of theories is all we truly have.

As far as God.... Well... He/ she/ it has been desrcibed as Love. Love is a feeling and not something you see.

Its apparent there are a lot of " things" in front of our eyes we cannot see nor detect says science. If this is true... What all is out here we cannot see? Can we feel it? Maybe God is not something thats easily defined? Dunno.

reply to post by MamaJ

Its apparent there are a lot of " things" in front of our eyes we cannot see nor detect says science. If this is true... What all is out here we cannot see? Can we feel it? Maybe God is not something thats easily defined? Dunno.

We can't see the full spectrum of light, but science has developed instruments that can. Every time science finds the reason for something that was once thought to be the action of God, like lightning, for example, our definition of God moves further away from our grasp.

Science may, in fact, isolate the "God" molecule that makes our brain perceive god, or why our brain synapses fire and then interprets God. But that will just make the idea of "God" more mysterious.

reply to post by MamaJ


I agree with that completely.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by MamaJ

 

Its apparent there are a lot of " things" in front of our eyes we cannot see nor detect says science. If this is true... What all is out here we cannot see? Can we feel it? Maybe God is not something thats easily defined? Dunno.

We can't see the full spectrum of light, but science has developed instruments that can. Every time science finds the reason for something that was once thought to be the action of God, like lightning, for example, our definition of God moves further away from our grasp.

Science may, in fact, isolate the "God" molecule that makes our brain perceive god, or why our brain synapses fire and then interprets God. But that will just make the idea of "God" more mysterious.

Science never developed the light spectrum, only the instruments of detection. Light existed before the instruments. When the ancient Chinese invented the compass it was done through the need for movement over long distances. They found the magnets acted a certain way, that is a law of physics.

What makes us search for meaning? We have an innate curiosity that makes us search and search. Where did that curiosity come from and why do some people not have it? Why are they happy to float along in life just reacting to things?

If science claims to find a God particle in our brains, then how did it get there? Why would some people have it and others not? If we are the height of evolution until now, then why not all people? Is it survival of the fittest? Have we adapted this particle to suit needs? And why would it suit needs? Do some people need God and others do not? If survival of the fittest is based in competition, then why the need for a God particle? Are we competing now as we speak to survive the environment or are we competing on a forum to have our intellect validated?

Why do non-believers in God only validate the intellect of another non-believer? Are they also in competition to adapt to their surroundings? 3light3n3d had the ability to change his intellect. He had control over it. Was this for competition or adaptation to survive against someone else who has not changed their intellect? If he had the power over his intellect then that means there can be no god particle.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Dear 3NL1GHT3N3D1,

Let me say that I'm finding our conversation to be very valuable, and I'm grateful you're willing to continue. Thanks.

I understand the first part. What do you believe to be supernatural in the universe? If it is happening then it is natural in my opinion.

Then it's my fault for not understanding. I was working under the assumption that while we cannot see "God's finger," we can see the results of it's stirring.

When I was in school. a teacher told the class that a lead weight sitting on a table could, without assistance, rise into the air. To every explanation we offered, he would say "There's another way." Eventually our young minds gave up and we asked for "another way." He reminded us that atoms are in constant motion, and if for some reason the billions and billions of atoms all moved "up" at the same instant, the lead weight would rise.

In my view, that occurrence would be supernatural. We would see the lead weight rise in our universe, perhaps we could even detect that the atoms were all moving in the same direction. But if asked for an explanation one would have to choose between "The most unlikely, impossible, chance coincidence the world has ever seen," or "God's foolin' around again."

We can see the results, but we can't see how it happened. Sure, in some circumstances, it's a lack of knowledge, and there is a natural, but obscure, explanation. But sometimes, it is so stunning, that we know it's from outside the rules of our universe.

Also, the example you gave is not trivial, it's common sense, something you don't need to trivialize to understand.

Nothing supernatural can exist in a completely natural universe.

Sorry for trivializing it, my apologies. I'm torn between two other positions and I'm not sure which I believe. God could be part of our universe, but undetectable, or God is outside our universe, but constantly and everywhere interacting with us. I think I prefer the former. But I'm not sure we live in a completely natural universe.

That's a faulty analogy with the play. Any character in that play can ask who the author is and find out, plus the script of a play always has its author's name written on the front page, unless the author doesn't want to be known.

You're absolutely right, it is a terrible analogy, but I wasn't speaking about the human actors on stage. I was speaking about the characters, in writing, on the pages of the play. Authors will sometimes tell you that when they are writing dialogue for their characters, what they write just came out because it seemed like what the character would say, or how that character would react.

Sherlock Holmes knows nothing, and can know nothing, about Sir Arthur C. Doyle. Yet we see Holmes as a distinct character, in a different reality. (I'm not putting this very well, I'm sorry. I'm trying to show two, different levels of reality, outside of each other, but each influencing the other.)

But, let me shift gears. Do I understand you to be saying that the supernatural doesn't exist, but ther's no law against it, that's just how it is? Or are you saying that by the laws of reason and logic, the supernatural can't have any effect in a natural universe? Or am I missing it completely, and you have some other position? I can't learn if I don't ask to be taught.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


Did the lead ball ever rise on its own though? If not then nothing supernatural ever happened. Just because the concept of that happening exists doesn't mean that it can and will happen. By the laws of physics, that lead ball can't and never will rise by itself.

Those characters in the play/book are not real, they are just products of the human imagination.

In my opinion (using logic and reason) something supernatural can never exist within this completely natural universe. Being supernatural means defying the laws of physics, which is not possible by something within this universe.

Just because something can't be explained doesn't mean it is supernatural, it just means science has not caught up with it yet.

Originally posted by charles1952
Authors will sometimes tell you that when they are writing dialogue for their characters, what they write just came out because it seemed like what the character would say, or how that character would react.
Charles1952

Absolutely true. I am a screenwriter and have written thousands of lines of dialogue for characters and can tell you this, there are times when writing I will type curse words that I don't even speak, but the character seems to say it because the character is not me.

Absolutely a correct statement.

I once wrote a script about a girl kidnapped by a man posing as a security guard. Even though I would never kidnap someone, I had to write the action and it shocked me just how mean this man was. I had to take a little time to clear my mind of this action, but it was not part of my ability to do something like the character did. He is not part of my psyche even though I wrote him.

Sometimes I think actors need therapy after portraying these characters. Film is a very spiritual thing, it speaks inwardly to the person watching.

Originally posted by WarminIndy

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by MamaJ

 

Its apparent there are a lot of " things" in front of our eyes we cannot see nor detect says science. If this is true... What all is out here we cannot see? Can we feel it? Maybe God is not something thats easily defined? Dunno.

We can't see the full spectrum of light, but science has developed instruments that can. Every time science finds the reason for something that was once thought to be the action of God, like lightning, for example, our definition of God moves further away from our grasp.

Science may, in fact, isolate the "God" molecule that makes our brain perceive god, or why our brain synapses fire and then interprets God. But that will just make the idea of "God" more mysterious.

Science never developed the light spectrum, only the instruments of detection. Light existed before the instruments. When the ancient Chinese invented the compass it was done through the need for movement over long distances. They found the magnets acted a certain way, that is a law of physics.

I never said it did.

What makes us search for meaning? We have an innate curiosity that makes us search and search. Where did that curiosity come from and why do some people not have it? Why are they happy to float along in life just reacting to things?

Science may be able to answer that question in the future.

If science claims to find a God particle in our brains, then how did it get there? Why would some people have it and others not? If we are the height of evolution until now, then why not all people? Is it survival of the fittest? Have we adapted this particle to suit needs? And why would it suit needs? Do some people need God and others do not? If survival of the fittest is based in competition, then why the need for a God particle? Are we competing now as we speak to survive the environment or are we competing on a forum to have our intellect validated?

Why are some people afraid of heights while others walk on tight ropes and work in high rise construction? Why do some people sing like angels and other could replicate a note if their life depended on it? Why are some people born healthy while others are not? God? I don't think so.

Survival is based on competition with nature. It's a race against time. When we are winning, we are able to exercise altruism and relax with our creature comforts.

Why do non-believers in God only validate the intellect of another non-believer? Are they also in competition to adapt to their surroundings? 3light3n3d had the ability to change his intellect. He had control over it. Was this for competition or adaptation to survive against someone else who has not changed their intellect? If he had the power over his intellect then that means there can be no god particle.

I can't answer that question, and by the way, I do believe in God. I just don't believe in the God of the Bible. I'm not sure what you mean by saying 3light3n3d changed his intellect. But I think people can change their mind as their point of view changes, as they gather more data an which to base their assumptions.

"If he had the power over his intellect then that means there can be no god particle"

The "God Particle" is a quantum physics reality and has to do mostly with gravity, not mind control. LOL. But IF science did discover a molecule in the brain that makes a person feel a presence of God, it may very well be the cause of an hallucination or a delusion that does effect a person's choices and judgement and free will. Finding a God molecule would work toward disproving God's existence, rather than reinforcing it. And saying that God put it there is the same as saying god put green eyes, blond hair or a birth defect there too.

Originally posted by WarminIndy

Originally posted by charles1952
Authors will sometimes tell you that when they are writing dialogue for their characters, what they write just came out because it seemed like what the character would say, or how that character would react.
Charles1952

Absolutely true. I am a screenwriter and have written thousands of lines of dialogue for characters and can tell you this, there are times when writing I will type curse words that I don't even speak, but the character seems to say it because the character is not me.

Absolutely a correct statement.

I once wrote a script about a girl kidnapped by a man posing as a security guard. Even though I would never kidnap someone, I had to write the action and it shocked me just how mean this man was. I had to take a little time to clear my mind of this action, but it was not part of my ability to do something like the character did. He is not part of my psyche even though I wrote him.

Sometimes I think actors need therapy after portraying these characters. Film is a very spiritual thing, it speaks inwardly to the person watching.

You are able to draw those characters out of you and commit them to paper and bring them to life because they are part of your psyche. It's the same with the actors, they are channeling those characters from their psyche.

I think that acting is therapy for some, and watching them is therapy for others.

reply to post by Greatest I am


You've seen to make some good points, Greatest I am. Though I am an idol worshiper (hence my ATS name), there could actually be truths' to your arguments (and I say this objectively). Subjectively, my personal experiences say otherwise (which I can't prove).....but other than that, it would be hard to argue your point. Now (I may be ignorant of this thread for saying this); I didn't exactly watch all of the Youtube Vidoes (I only watched a glimpse of all of them - emphasizing the mentioning of my ignorance), but the last video with the map and the lecturer with the professor explaining it - did catch my attention; it caught my attention because of the transition he made from 'religious denominations' (principles of humanity come out based on "where you happen to be born") to dinosaur extinction; that piece of the lecturer, in my opinion, sounds all too real!

I probably did just make a post on "fluff"; I guess what I wanted to say is that your thread pointers would be hard
to argue.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Dear 3NLiGHT3N3D1,

Thank you for your patience and your explanation. We may have come to a point where the discussion could become fairly complex.

Did the lead ball ever rise on its own though? If not then nothing supernatural ever happened. Just because the concept of that happening exists doesn't mean that it can and will happen. By the laws of physics, that lead ball can't and never will rise by itself.

The laws of Physics are simply summaries of what we have observed with our scientific instruments. The lead ball has never risen by itself, but, theoretically, it could as the instructor described. It's just an enlarged example of the hundred monkeys, typing on a hundred typewriters, eventually banging out the complete works of Shakespeare. Physics only tells us what has been seen to happen, over and over, during the time we have observed things.

Those characters in the play/book are not real, they are just products of the human imagination.

In one sense, of course, you are quite correct, but many philosophers and mystics have suggested that we are just the products of Divine imagination.

In my opinion (using logic and reason) something supernatural can never exist within this completely natural universe. Being supernatural means defying the laws of physics, which is not possible by something within this universe.

And this is where we differ. We reach different conclusions using science and reason.

Would you mind terribly if I mentioned one more example? Suppose you are playing pool with a massive supercomputer and measuring devices at your side. Some one bets you that you can't predict where a particular ball will end up after your shot. Well, to win the bet, you hook everything up. You measure the force of the shot, the angle of the table, the elasticity of the sides, the weight of each ball, the air currents in the room, and many more elements. You then, confidentally make your shot. As the ball leaves the cue, the person who bet you snatches up the cue ball and throws it somewhere on the table. You would be justified in saying "That's not fair. I can't be expected to account for monkey business like that!" And you'd be quite right. Physics doesn't help a bit there. Someone interfered from outside the rules of physics and changed the results.

That's what I think God does. The rules of physics haven't been changed, they're still functioning as normal, but a new outside element interferes, and you get entirely unexpected results. There is nothing there for physics to ever explain. Using only the rules of physics, it will never, ever, throughout eternity, be able to even study it.

I hope I've told you how much I appreciate your posting, thank you very much.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by WarminIndy

Dear WarminIndy,

Thanks, I appreciate it.

I suppose you've heard of "creative genius." You must have, being the wildly famous and succesful author you no doubt are. I don't understand it myself, I'm not sure anyone does, but after working on a post I sometimes say "Did I write that? That's not the worst piece of writing I've ever seen." It seems to come from outside, and be beyond what I ever thought I could write.

I don't have any trouble with the idea of God being in such a state continuously. Creating amazing things left and right, and putting them down on the paper we call our universe.

Sorry for the ramble, but I wanted to make sure I thanked you for your personal example.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


Until that theory is corroborated with evidence, that's all it is, a theory. If there is evidence that the ball has lifted on its own, then we'll talk.

That imagination of the divine is us. We make the world around us with our minds through our five senses. Without any of those senses, nothing would exist from our perspectives, we would be comatose, in a vegetative state without the ability to comprehend or perceive. We would have no perception of anything, and to perceive is to exist.

When have you ever seen the laws of physics not apply to something? Everything abides by physics, no ifs ands or buts about it. Until there is proof something can operate outside the laws of physics, I will continue to believe it is impossible to do so. I respect your opinion though.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Dear 3NL1GHT3N3D1,

Would you be surprised if I said I agree with you? Well, except maybe for that divine imagination paragraph.

Until that theory is corroborated with evidence, that's all it is, a theory. If there is evidence that the ball has lifted on its own, then we'll talk.

Forgive me, but why would we talk? Would you not say "It's a natural event, because there can be no supernatural event in a natural universe. There is an explanation and science will find it some day?" All we have is faith in our positions, that's not unusual.

When have you ever seen the laws of physics not apply to something? Everything abides by physics, no ifs ands or buts about it. Until there is proof something can operate outside the laws of physics, I will continue to believe it is impossible to do so.

Nope, no proof, nothing that you would call proof. Modern Scientists have said on many occasions that such and such a thing is impossible, there is no explanation for it. That's not proof, but it's evidence.

That imagination of the divine is us. We make the world around us with our minds through our five senses. Without any of those senses, nothing would exist from our perspectives, we would be comatose, in a vegetative state without the ability to comprehend or perceive. We would have no perception of anything, and to perceive is to exist.

This paragraph confuses me more than anything you've said. It seems important and I don't want to misunderstand it.

It seems you're saying that every person creates his own universe with the power of his mind. This might lead to a universe in which you perceive a house in the distance, and because of faulty vision, I don't That means it exists for you and doesn't exist for me. But that doesn't address the question, does the house, in fact, exist?

Following on that, you seem to be saying that if we can't percieve, we don't exist. I've been under general anasthesia (sp?), and the doctors assured me that i did not stop existing. Perhaps I only existed because they perceived me? If they all left the room, would I go Pooof?

So obviously, I must be misunderstanding. If you think it's worthwhile, you can respond, but if not, I'll understand.

With respect,
Charles1952