When people refer to God usually they refer to the creator of the universe . The question then becomes are we created or we just found ourselves here on earth ?. If we were designed then there must be a designer . If we were not designed then how on earth we were born ?.

God is not energy. Energy is energy. 'God' is 'God'.

I am I. Energy is energy. Mar car is my car. A light bulb is a light bulb.

My dookie has energy though!

I get what you’re saying and I agree with you – given your definitions.

Again, it seems to me that you’re simply giving your definition of “nothing” – ascribing a property to it (nothing can come from it.) Well if that is a property of “nothing”, then of course nothing can come from nothing, because it would otherwise violate your definition and would become “something”. But then, not everyone defines “nothing” the way you do. So the end result is, you disagree because their definition is not the same as yours. Which kinda makes it an epistemic argument for an ontic phenomena, doesn’t it?




Now there is an implication in this statement that I would like to address…
The implication being that it is possible for there to be something that we can never detect. Is that acccurate?




I don’t see a problem with postulating properties for the “undetected cause” and developing a theory based on those postulates. As I see it, that’s exactly what science does when it runs into an unexplained event. And it is also exactly what spiritualism does when it runs into an unexplained event. The difference is in the postulated properties and the logic system used to extrapolate an “explanation” from those postulates. With science, the logic system is mathematics. With spiritualism, it is philosophical reasoning.

It doesn't trip me up in the slightest Jeremy.

When I speak to the issue of science I ACCEPT modern science as it is today.

Modern science does not permit those 'immeasurable' events that you keep speaking about.

Why not? Because modern science has currently accepted QM as a central pillar of physics. And QM does not permit anything less than a quanta of information, or energy exchange, and that is indeed MEASUREABLE. Anything less would be a violation of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

Therefore you must be speaking about some non-scientific abstract philosophy when you speak about interactions that are "beneath detection".

I can certainly go there from a pure philosophical point of view. But I think if we're going to go there we should make it clear that we our ignoring modern science and speculating of things that are as unscientific as ghosts, gobblins, and boogiemen.

I'll be GLAD to go there.

Just know that when we do we are outside of anything scientific in the modern sense of the term. You have always voiced a strong desire to stay within the scientific realm. So I try to stay within that realm when speaking with you.

But you seem to be the one who always wants to go ouside of it.

It's not scientific to speak about an unmeasurable event. That would violate QM. Because a quanta of action is within our ability to detect.

You are right on the money here Sky.

And you've made an extremely important point. Science is ultimately based on mathematical descriptions. And those descriptions ultimately don't explain anything really. All they do is describe them in great detail using quantitative mathematical descriptions.

Moreover, all of those descriptions contain 'fudge factors'! Like the mathematical description of gravity. It ultimately requires the use of a 'gravitational constant' that can only be measured from the real world observation. So that's the 'fudge factor'.

This is true of all the forces of physics. It's all just mathematical descriptions based on 'fudge factors'.

It's ultimately NOT an explanation it's merely a very detailed observation. Which is useful, but certainly doesn't qualify as an explanation for anything, it's just a detailed description of an observation is all.

And then they go on to describe everything that happens after that in terms of 'cause-and-effect'. Which works wonderfully on the macro level. So that's the scientific "explanation". Everything works on mathematical principle with cause-and-effect as the explanation.

In fact, that was ultimately the "Newtonian Era".

But then with the discovery of General Relativity we realized that the mathematical quantities that we believed to be absolute turned out to be malleable. Space, Mass, Momentum and even Time itself are all malleable and not concrete. Then with the discovery of Quantum Mechanics our very notion of locality breaks down and cause and effect as we knew it flies out the window.

I think science has done a great job of quantifying the macro world. But clearly that formal mathematical approach to describing things quantitatively in absolute terms of cause and effect has come to some major stumbling blocks.

Even science itself has recognized these two pillars of modern science. The malleability of mathematic quantities with Relativity, and the breakdown of classical local cause and effect.

Those, 'explanations' have become elusive and no longer concrete.

This is in no way meant as a 'put down' to the scientific method. It's just a recognition and acceptance that it clearly has it's limitations with respect to being a model for how we might describe all of reality.

I see nothing wrong with recognizing this fact. To recognize it is to accept the scientific discoveries themselves. To reject the limitations of science is ultimately the same as rejecting science itself, IMHO.

Does god still cause thunderstorms, lightning, earthquakes and famine? Locusts? Is the sun being pulled across the sky by chariot? Does Pele cause volcanic eruptions? Evil spirits possess me and make me angry. My headache comes from thinking bad thoughts. Is the earth flat?

Yeah, I agree...

Science explains nothing.



******* insert slap on the forehead here *******

Jeez!

It sure ia a good thing we have all of the spiritual endeavors which have given us all of the knowledge and technology that mankind has.

Thank god for spritualism.

For all we know that may very well be the case. Science most certainly hasn't disproved any of that. All science has done is offer explantions for how these things can be physically manifest.

If Jeanniebean, and so many others, are right that our thoughts and intent guide the forces of nature then perhaps "god" does indeed cause these things.

Like she is so fond of saying, "You need to define god before you can ask whether or not god does anything".

If science describes how a magic wand works does this take anything away from the magician who wields it? After all, science can't even predict the weather. So even though it can describe what happens locally it can't say what truly drives it over all.



How far into mythology do you want to go before you've recognized that you're no longer talking about philosophy?



According to the Bible Jesus cast evil spirits out of men who were possessed by them. Something like 33% of humans on Earth, and over 75% of humans in the USA still believe in Jesus and evil spirits. You'll have to take the evil spirit thing up with them.

I'm not sure if religious mythologies of jealous personified godheads qualify as 'philosophy' though. I suppose that would be a topic for discussion in it's own right.

I also enjoy technology. I also very much enjoy science. I would never oppose scientific study, on the contrary I support it and participate in it myself.

Just the same I personally hold that the best things in life are not technological at all, but indeed spiritual.

Spiritual things such as LOVE which science has no clue about whatsoever.

Science falsified it.

Science gave a more accurate definition.

Science explained it away.

That is the point.

To say science explains nothing is false.

If science falsified LOVE I'm afraid they weren't very convincing.

That was referring to the previous post...



As if it were not obvious?

So I guess atheists such as myself, who dismiss spirit as nothing more than a remnant of the 'God of Abraham' and modern-day Western Mythology do not or cannot know love?

That is quite a stretch huh?

Someone who is never introduced to spritualism cannot know love?

Really?

Ok then, thank you for the dialogue.

"Atheist" works, though it literally means "without God." Just semantics, of course.

Please provide one--just one--coherent, solid example of such "internal conflicts." The stories you previously mentioned I showed fairly clearly not to be such examples.

Sacrifice. God is all about sacrifice. The action, being nailed to the cross, carries with it deep symbolism of self-sacrifice for the service of another (ubiquitous throughout the Old Testament), which was precisely what Christ did. He died in every sense (physically and spiritually) so that people like you and I might live; there is no greater example of compassion (expressing love for another) or mercy (giving generously to the undeserving).

His sacrifice fulfilled prophesy (read: Isaiah 53, for example) perfectly. It was necessary to fulfill His promise to save mankind and to bring us life. It proved God right and provided means to meet man's greatest need: A restored relationship with God.

Such disdain for physical mutilation suggests that you would not wish to experience such a thing yourself (hey, I'm not a fan of blood myself). Imagine pain infinitely worse and long; that is what His actions allowed the human race to be spared from: That should be our torture and anguish, the pain that our recalcitrance against our Maker has earned.

Yes. It is sick--in that it is unfair that an entirely perfect, entirely innocent God died the gruesome death we should have. But He did. And a wise man would ask "why?" (because He loves us) and "what should my response be?" (I am guilty, God is righteous, and I accept what He has done for me).

Plants have a physical function; that seems different from any sort of "awareness." They respond to physical stimuli. In fact, trying to apply "awareness" to such things as trees and grass, things that merely function perfunctorily, seems more like superimposing our own abilities--humans' extraordinary abilities to philosophize and think abstractly (even lower mammals' abilities)--onto things that, as far as anything empirically or scientifically sound, lack them.

I don't think one can prove God exists. Believing strongly is still not proof. Nobody can KNOW what happens when we all die, until they're dead.

James:


I could be mistaken, but from what I understand, the term "quanta" is simply a theoretical unit of measurement and in actuality does not exist and has no specific dimensions. Would you please explain what you mean by "a quanta of action?"

Creative:


Creative,

You cannot really describe "God" as "God." I am not trying to say that God is energy. I am making the point that if you are going to use the term "God" then you should define what you mean by that term. I simply do not know what people mean when they use that term.

To me, to say that "God did this, or "God said this or that" does not make sense if they do not know what (or who) God is. Before anyone talks to me about God, I want to know what they think God is.

P.S. Your dookie? Please define dookie.

Jeremy:

You crack me up.

Zpicante:



Responding to physical stimuli IS AWARENESS.

Awareness comes in degrees.

If you are going to talk about something being "scientifically sound" how can you talk about God? Have YOU defined that term yet? What or who is God?

After you define that term, and state that God created the universe and man, then tell me how exactly he or she or It did that.

Your beliefs are not scientifically sound if they include the necessity to sacrifice a man for the crimes or "sins" of the world. How does that make any sense?

I do understand the symbolism of self sacrifice for the love of others but that is just symbolism. The entire story of the crucification is symbolism. There is no scientifically sound evidence that it ever even happened. In fact, the passion play of that story was a PLAY long before you say it happened for real.

It seems to me the whole thing is just a fairy tale, so how can you talk about what is "scientifically sound?"

Given that God refers to "the creator" of the universe, then please describe or define "the creator." Then, the next step is to develop some rational or logical theory of how this 'creator' did whatever it is they think he (she or It) did.

I would tell them this:

Inquire. Ask questions. Develop a theory. Stop worshiping ignorance.

I already provided two examples, neither of which you were able to refute to my satisfaction.

The entire story of Job is a conflict in so many ways.

1. It has God taking Satan up on a bet.
2. It has Satan asking God for permission to do his evil.
3. It has an all-knowning God 'testing' the faith of a human.
4. It has God allowing an entire family to be killed to test one soul.
5. It basically suggests that God feels a need to prove something to Satan at the cost of other souls.

Non of those things are compatible with an all-knowing, all-wise, all-compassionate God. Therefore they are all in direct conflict with what God is supposed to be, as well as with what Satan is supposed to be and his relationship with God as well. This story has Satan asking God for permission before he does anything. That implies that Satan is nothing more than God's hit man.

So I don't see where you've explained any of those conflicts away.

Another example I gave was Yahweh commanding people to murder anyone who rejects his word and anyone who tries to put anyone BEFORE HIM. His very first commandment is "Thou shalt have no other Gods BEFORE me".

And then he supposedly sense his Son namded Jesus into this same crowd to denounce the teachings of Yahweh and to tell them that they must place him (Jesus) BEFORE the God of Abraham by teaching that the only way to get TO the God of Abraham is THROUGH HIM.

If that's not a direct conflict I don't know what is.

Moreover, you don't seem understand the deeper concepts with the idea that having Jesus nailed to a pole wouldn't solve anything.

The whole idea of blood sacrifices in the first place was to appease the Gods. This was a common things with many mythological Gods all over the world in many cultures. Even Zeus was appeased by blood sacrifices.

Why would an all-wise, all-compassionate God be appeased by a blood sacarifices in the first place? That's clearly a common human superstition.

Just the same let's pretend that it could have legitemate merit. Then in the case of Jesus it's utterly absurd because here we'd have a God sacrificing his own son to appease himself. This is supposed to be a God who is CAPABLE of forgiveness. Well, he shouldn't need a blood sacrifice to be able to forgive people.

Who would the sacrifice have been made to?

It couldn't have been made TO mankind. God would have no need to appease men, they are supposedly the sinners.

It certainly could have been God attempting to appease Satan. In fact, many Christians believe that's precisely what it way. They often speak of the crucifixion of Jesus as God having "beaten" the Devil. So many Christians do indeed see the sacrifice being made TO Satan for the sake of mankind.

But this makes no sense whatsoever. Blood sacrifices prior to that were all to appease God, not to appease Satan. Also, for God to appease Satan would imply that God is desperate and really has no choice but to sacrifice his son to Satan. But we can't have that because God is supposed to be all-powerful and would never need to jump through any hoops to appease Satan.

So the only thing left is for God to be appeasing himself by the sacrifice. But that just implies that God is one sick sadistic puppy who actually "Gets some sort of pleasure" out of the act. After all, why should an all-powerful God do anything that doesn't please him?

The whole idea of a God appeasing himself by having someone nailed to a pole is uttely absurd. In fact, the whole mythology is utterly absurd and completely indefensible, IMHO.

The God that is depicted in the Bible simply can't be all-wise, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-merciful, and all-perfect and still be compatible with the actual stories.

Something's got to give.

If you look at the stories of Zeus, at least Zeus wasn't seen as 'all-perfect'. Zeus was allowed to have the pitfalls of humans. Zeus could hate you just because he doesn't like you and that would be just fine. So at least that mythology could justify it's deity because it never claimed that it's deity was all-loving, all-merciful, all-wise, all-perfect, or any of that.

If the Biblical God is all-perfect and all-wise and all of these lofty traits, then God could not possibly be mean to a nice person because that would violate his supposed character. Yet the whole story is about how this God hates anyone who doesn't worship him whether they are nice people or not.

The whole book is one total catastrophy of contradiction after contradiction after contradcition. No outside reference is even required to show that it's utterly absurd within the scope of its own claims. The authors who made this mythology up shot themsleves in their own foot repeatedly.

Hope this helps.