M
Moonstruck888
Guest
I’m sorry for your loss.
- Status
W
wheels10
Guest
OK, I think you probably meant to say that you are unaware of something being created out of nothing. Even I can create nothing out of nothing!
I just wanted to point out that science has its limitations. You believe in science. God has no limitations. I believe in God.
M
Moonstruck888
Guest
Yes, very droll…OK, I think you probably meant to say that you are unaware of something being created out of nothing. Even I can create nothing out of nothing!
I just wanted to point out that science has its limitations. You believe in science. God has no limitations. I believe in God.
Incidentally, I could sit here and write an elaborate story about a being with no limitations. It doesn’t make that being real.
W
wheels10
Guest
Yes it was quite the test. You know what, Life is quite the test as well! There are many decisions that we make each and every day that test our Love of God. The most important tests are the way we interact with people. Our interaction should be one that shares God’s Love. And the Love that I’m talking about is the following:
1 Corinthians, Chapter 13: “Love is patient, love is kind, and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices in the truth; bears all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails.”
So if you are behaving in the manner described above, then you can be sure that you have Love.
I
IntegraCatholic
Guest
The word anathema is used in ecclesiastical documents to say that such an opinion is condemned as erroneous by the Church and that anyone who follows this error will be damned if he does not convert before the end of his life. This is not illogical because if Jesus Christ is God, one must accept all he has taught in order to be saved. Otherwise, he would be denying God, who is ultimately truth.anathema:
-from Wikipedia-
…Thus, the meaning of the Greek word anathema, under the influence of the Hebrew word herem, was eventually taken as meaning ‘set apart,’ (like herem) rather than ‘an offering to god,’ as it had meant in Greek, and eventually the word came to be seen as meaning ‘banished’ and to be considered beyond the judgment and help of the community.
So according to this scripture, and your tenants, someone who is searching and is an agnostic is beyond help. Yeah?
Ok, then.
If so, it’s been real.
I’ve really enjoyed reading all of your thoughts, beliefs, and you all have answered a LOT of my questions, but I obviously don’t belong here.
It’s :nope:a shame. I was really starting to understand a bit of where you all were coming from, but perhaps not.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Does that include you?
Do you have a superior explanation? You take it for granted that you owe your existence to such laws - a fact that should be taken into account in any adequate interpretation of reality if you are not to fall into the trap of deriving that which is purposeful from that which is purposeless…
Do you consider yourself to be as “dreadfully ordinary” as everyone else? You are implying that everyone (or the majority) should be extraordinary - which is obviously statistically absurd… Can you specify precisely how “they” could have a more interesting set of properties?
What makes you think that He cannot? Your notion of God seems rather peculiar, to say the least!
W
wheels10
Guest
G
greylorn
Guest
Reply 1 of 2
The scientific name dropping might be used to better effect upon someone whose first paper on variable stars had not been published while you were in diapers.
Dare we inform the non-scientists you are trying to impress (a.k.a. the curious and sometimes thoughtful “rubes”) that the 1a supernova redshift is a “benchmark” without a bench? It was derived by observing data transmitted from the past, from distant galaxies far, far away, and made into a “benchmark” by approximations, averaging, and comparing things far away to other things far away. Shall we tell the rubes how much raw belief there is behind the inferences made from 1a SN observations, such as the belief that the redshift represents a velocity measurement, and that the velocity of light and the laws of the universe are indeed universal constants?
Except— dare we tell them?— that in order to make the post-big-bang expansion theories work it is necessary to temporarily change the velocity of light? We could explain that this is definitely NOT fudging the data.
Shall we tell the rubes that the 1a supernova observations were made, not on actual supernovas, but on stellar remnants which we think are supernovas? Shall we ask some of the old astronomers who knew Hubble how much data he threw out because it failed to match his theories?
Dare we mention that the half-life of an astronomy textbook is the shortest in the industry?
Must I explain that astronomy is not an experimental science? We don’t get to harvest star stuff— we only get to observe light emitted from objects that may not exist any more. Astronomy is strictly an observational science, and the conclusions astronomers derive are entirely inferential. I know. I’ve been out with quite a number of them, and they get their most imaginative inferences after a few rounds of their favorite ethanol blend, as to many of us. That’s why peer review is important. Most of it happens the morning after, under the influence of black coffee and friendly ridicule.
I submit that scientists simply take different things on faith than religionists, and that they all do this for excellent reasons. For example,
Astronomers cannot possibly make any sense of the universe’s behavior without their assumption that the laws of physics are constant throughout space and time. Therefore they adopt that belief. It is a reasonable belief, and personally, I like it. But it could be dead wrong.
Relgionists need to make sense of the kind of internal experiences which some refer to as spiritual or psychic (for which there is an enormous body of evidence), so they invented belief in God to help them along. With a few modifications, such as the elimination of omnipotentce/omniscience and related concepts, I’ve actually built a logically coherent explanation of reality on the basic idea of a Creator. It could be and probably is, dead wrong— but I like it and no one has refuted it yet.
So don’t get too snooty about being a “scientist.” Not just now. We are in a time of change and conflict, with the seemingly conflicting beliefs of religion and science coming to a nasty ferment. The game is in play, and when it is finished, neither the beliefs of science nor religion will hold their previous ground. Only a nitwit would claim to know the outcome of the most profound intellectual struggle the world has ever known.
Finally, it would be remiss of me not to point out that the properties of your “singularity,” (I prefer to call it the cosmic micropea) are in all general respects identical with the traditional God-concept.
Neither can be currently detected by any known physical means.
The existence of both/either can only be “known” by inferential reasoning, which is always suspect except when Sherlock Holmes does it.
Neither can be defined in terms of conventional space-time constructs.
Each pre-existed the origin of our universe, but no cause can be assigned to their existence.
The all-power, all-knowlege blather applies to each.
No intelligent reason can be devised for why either one went from its stable always-existing state into the instability required to produce a universe.
CONTINUED…
L
larkin31
Guest
There is no logical or rational “proof” of the existence of a god. This thread demonstrates such once again. There have been attempts, but they all make false assumptions at at least one point. (Or at lest the ones that I have had explained to me–I know that I have not actually heard them “all”)
G
greylorn
Guest
REPLY 2 of 2 to post 9-132
From prior posts I’m guessing that you are simply another run-of-the-mill atheist with a physics certificate from DeVry who’s watched NitGeo a few afternoons while cleaning the house for mom, and without an interesting idea in his head, I’d love to be wrong. If you can actually understand anything I’ve just written, and can move to a different position— rather than defending one religion against another, to working on ideas outside existing beliefs, do let me know.
Please do not take the above remarks personally. They are based upon the same kind of objective scientific observations that astronomers use to identify 1a supernovas. That is pretty much comparing one ball of exploded gas to other balls of gas with similar characteristics. It is entirely impersonal. Neither I nor astronomers can reach out and touch the gas balls. We cannot even be certain that the gas balls actually exist.
I am currently working on modeling the pre-existing (pre-matter) universe with one of the Calabi-Yau spaces plus an embedded space, and have a correspondent working on this. Can’t do it myself, since I’m a few decades past my last topology class and 3 hours from the nearest university. Can you assist?
My purpose is simply figuring out the entire universe using the known laws of science, and I include a Creator and the “soul” in that figuring. Anyone qualified is welcome to assist.
C
coolduude
Guest
There is plenty proof. But you must be intellectually honest with yourself to know the truth. Hardening your heart to the truth will get you nowhere fast.
G
greylorn
Guest
Reply 1 of 2
Tonyrey! It’s been a while, and I’ve kind of missed you. Thank you for the opportunity to re-engage and annoy you only half as much as I must have done during our last set of exchanges.
tonyrey:
Absolutely! It was from comparison of myself with admirable human beings that I came to realize my own unworthiness to exist. From that perspective, I asked why a God who had proven his ability to create truly wonderful and extraordinary people had also created me. I became rather upset with Him for doing so.greylorn:
Does that include you?
Then I realized that His creation of me was an act of incompetence. This left me with the option to believe that the Creator of this magnificent universe was incompetent, or that He did not create me (and by inference, anyone else).
Easy choice.
Yes, I actually do have an explanation which I regard as effective, on the grounds that it allows no conflict between God and thermodynamics. I’ve expressed it several times on CAF but few seem capable of understanding the simple concept. It is outside of dogma. I don’t figure that there’s any point in reiterating. However, my book should be published by the end of summer. It will explain the relationship of the conservation of energy law to the nature and even the physical origin of the Creator, plus a few other minor ideas. You will love every word, and if you PM with your current email address you’ll get a chance to order an advance copy, which will be signed.greylorn:
Do you have a superior explanation? You take it for granted that you owe your existence to such laws - a fact that should be taken into account in any adequate interpretation of reality if you are not to fall into the trap of deriving that which is purposeful from that which is purposeless…
Later, when you are in your dotage and I am rich and famous, and in mine, you’ll be able to exchange your signed copy for a free feeding.
Whatever I am, in some parts of this universe, I’m dreadfully ordinary. Both my friends will agree. But I appear to have non-ordinary thought processes. I’ve made my living solving problems which others had written off as insoluble— but I did not know that when I set to work. Insofar as I can tell, this is not an ordinary ability, although it is certainly shared by many individuals— who are formally noted as being extraordinary.greylorn:
Do you consider yourself to be as “dreadfully ordinary” as everyone else? You are implying that everyone (or the majority) should be extraordinary - which is obviously statistically absurd… Can you specify precisely how “they” could have a more interesting set of properties?
But I’m not extraordinary. I’m simply, not ordinary. Except in basic things, brain driven aspects of life. I’ve loved and been heartbroken. I’ve failed and cried. I’ve done wrong, and some right that never fully compensates. I’m an imprinted Packer fan with a #4 jersey (ordinary) who thinks that Brett Favre did the right thing by doing something else (not quite so ordinary). I’m an Ice Bowl veteran, one of the few left alive (ordinary). The Packers’ last superbowl win came because of me (and an assistant) using psychic stuff (on the far edge of ordinary).
I don’t buy products sold with cartoons or tom-toms, I live alone in some mountains, cut my firewood, shoot some food, write books about how the universe came into existence. Others do these things, making them ordinary.
The planet has offered many examples of extraordinary individuals. Jesus Christ comes to mind. Galileo, Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Planck, Einstein, Feynman. Bach, Vivaldi, Beethoven, Brahms. You get the idea.
In terms of properties, that is quite simple. Instead of having a tendency to be imprinted with the first set of beliefs they are taught, like baby ducks, human beings might be born with enough intelligence to quickly see through nonsense and arrive at ideas that made sense.
A simpler variation which would be welcome. They might not be so programmable. They might buy beer that tastes good instead of beer which is advertised to make them think that if they drink it, they are more manly. Or whatever.
Non-ordinary is watching a stupid car commercial and thinking, “Is there a manufacturer who put its $10,000 into vehicle quality instead of the mindless ad I just watched?” Is there a voter who demands that a “None of the Above” option be placed on all ballots?
Of course, if everyone actually thought for himself and refused to follow the crowd, and rap was not regarded as music, the standard for “ordinary” would be shifted upward, in the direction of independent intelligence. I would love to live in a world where coherent thought and general honesty and diverse, creative intelligence was ordinary, where neither Bible thumpers nor bobble-headed Darwinists exist.
That means, if by some clerical error I’m invited into heaven, I won’t go.
CONTINUED…
G
greylorn
Guest
Reply 2 of 2
tonyrey:
I don’t, it is, and thank you!greylorn:
What makes you think that He cannot? Your notion of God seems rather peculiar, to say the least!
To clarify— If God is omniscient He cannot have a creative thought. I prefer the idea that God thinks, which seems well-reflected in, for example, the process of biological evolution. I asked the question of another poster, mostly as a bait and switch ploy, to see if he had a mind.
My God-concept is peculiar indeed. It is perfectly compatible with every known law of physics, and with every bit of physical evidence discovered by every known science. It explains creation, and it explains the ordinariness I’ve been whining about. It explains dark energy. The only phenomenon it does not explain is astrology, but I’m working on that.
G
greylorn
Guest
Moonstruck.
Of late you’ve been sporting something called “Young’s Theorem” as a signature tag line.
Have you noticed that the “theorem” is expressed in inefficient 5th grade English, and that it is not a theorem at all, but rather a tautology?
Is “Young” your real name, or that of a college buddy invested in your combo Beer Can Holder and Propeller Beanie with Groucho Eyebrows & Nose franchise?
C
coolduude
Guest
Greylorn- just a quick question. You’re a theist right? It’s hard to tell 
G
greylorn
Guest
It is not at all hard to tell. Simply look at the upper right hand corner of my posts, read the text following “Religion:”Greylorn- just a quick question. You’re a theist right? It’s hard to tell
Next, a dictionary would tell you what heterodoxical meant. About 4 years of study would give you a decent sense of what “physics” means.
L
larkin31
Guest
This is a thread where those who claim “proof” ought to be presenting it. Do you have any? Are you accusing me of being intellectually dishonest? It has been a while since someone has accused me of that here. Could you please explain just what you mean so that I can defend myself against the aspersion.
C
coolduude
Guest
First of all, many proofs have been presented, but there are 11 pages of it. Have you read all 11 pages up to this point?
Secondly, I am not accusing you of being intellectually dishonest. I’m saying that if you’re honest with yourself you’ll find God. He’s suprisingly easy to find
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
Can you tell us what it means?
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
All scientists have beliefs; they have beliefs about how we should conduct our lives. They have beliefs about what a good life would consist of. They have a belief about what ultimate reality consists of. They have beliefs about what is right and what is wrong. They believe that other minds exist. Some believe in God. A rational scientist would perceive science as revealing one aspect of reality alone and would not perceive the scientific principle as limiting them in developing an all encompassing rational inferential philosophy about the other aspects of life that are evident to us but cannot be touched by the scientific method.
The problem with you is that you present science as an all embracing measure of truth, outside of which no belief can be rationally or reasonably held or proven; but this contradicts the fact that we hold many beliefs that cannot be validated by science, and we perceive our selves as legitimately holding these beliefs.
- Status