And here's the verse that shows that Jesus is the son of God.

Matthew 1:21
And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

So...I'm guessing I'm the only one on here with a life....

I'm also guessing that you don't exactly read everything I write nor do you completely understand what little you do. Whether this is do to inability, laziness, or just unwillingness, I cannot say.

While it is true I am ignorant of many things, everyone is, from your postings, some would say rantings, it is obvious what you believe in. You've spelled it out numerous times.

It has often been said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing, over and over, expecting different results everytime.
With that in mind, I'm going to try this one more time.

You say you're a physicist. I believe that unlikely. Scientists, on the whole, do not believe in things w/o proof of their existance. They do not believe in something just because no scientific principle can prove it doesn't exist. Most scientists know you can't prove a negative. You're right in saying I can't prove your godthing doesn't exist. Just like you can't prove there isn't a 900ft flying invisable silent transdimentional moth flying over my head. LACK OF EVIDENCE (for or against) IS NOT EVIDENCE. If you were in any scientific field, you'd know that. I think it more likely you're just a silly kid w/ delusions of grandeur.

You believe what you believe because you want to. Period. You've presented no evidence whatsoever that your godthing exists. Period. What you keep repeating, ad nauseum(sp?), is that science can't prove your godthing doesn't exist. What you fail to realize is that science can't prove your godthing exists either. And any good scientist will tell you, it is a bad thing to believe in something just because there's no evidence against it.

I think it a very great shame that it seems like someone screwed you up so badly. I truly hope you get the help you obviously need. And yeah, if someone really believes God really speaks to them directly, they really are insane. If you don't believe me, go ask a shrink.
No seriously, go ask a shrink.

Oh really. Gosh, I've never heard that one before. sheesh...



Somehow, I seriously doubt that.

uh huh. You obviously don't know the difference between opinion and philosophy. But hey, whatever.

indeed.
And illogical notions drive me crazy, so to speak, too.

You're kidding, right?

lol...indeed

It would be more accurate to say that the universe came into being by processes as yet known. THAT requires no "faith".

Exatly.

Everything written about your Jesus was written at least 3 generations after his supposed death from stories passed down by word of mouth. Everything written about your Jesus can be found in other, older, mythological stories.
And just because some story happens to have a real location in it, doesn't make the story true. Surely, you can see that.

I seriously doubt that you have the faintest clue what I "believe".

I don't "believe" in anything any more strongly the String Theorists "believe" in strings.

You seem to be out to science as a some sort of 'club' to beat other people over the head with in the utterly false pretense that science somehow supports your views over theirs.

That, my friend, is your delusion, not mine.

I'm complete harmony with everything that science and the scientific method stands for. Nothing I say goes against science.

I don't need to prove my conjectures because conjectures don't require proof. Moreover, I have already demonstarted more than sufficient observational evidence for the existence of 'spirit' as I define it.

What you might argue with is my definition of 'spirit'. But that moves over to philosophy and is totally out of the realm of science.

What I can, and have shown, is that it makes just as much sense based on current modern scientific theories to suggest that the physical universe arises from "consciousness", as it does to suggest that "consciousness" arises from the physics. The scientific observation that information must exist in the quantum vacuum, and must have also preexisted the Big Bang, is all the 'evidence' I need to support my theories and conjectures.

Therefore my philosophy is as much in harmony with the knowledge of science as anyone's.

The bottom line is that science does support your views over mine. You Sir, are grossly misrepresenting science and exhibiting your own ignorance of science by even remotely suggesting that it does.

Whatever.
In any case, since you won't or can't address what I've written, I'm done.
Done with banging my head against some mad bugger's wall.

Address what? Most of what you've given is just meaningless opinion.

Are you referring to the following?


As far as I can see this is just a reflection of your inability, or unwillingness, to actually comprehend my position.

To begin with, I’m not even remotely attempting to prove a ‘godthing’ as you call it. My concepts are far more professional than that.

I’ve already attempted to describe this to you in a civil manner many posts ago. I actually took the time to type in a quite lengthy post for you because I thought you may indeed have the ability to comprehend what I’m saying. Clearly I was mistaken.

I’ll try again very briefly here in a condensed version, just for the sake of clarity.

Secular scientists (which does not include all scientists) but the secular ones hold that consciousness arises from form. In other words human consciousness arises from the fact that we have physical brains. (i.e. it's an emergent property of the brain) Take away the physical form, and these secular scientists claim that there can be no ‘information’ without that ‘form’. And thus they hold that it is utterly absurd and ridiculous to even speak about ‘information’ without physical form. (i.e. a non-physical spiritual world)

However, my point is that these so-called secular scientists are actually misrepresenting science. In fact, most of the scientists who take that view are biologists and not physicists.

Most physicists are fully aware that the ‘line’ between what we think of as physical and non-physical has been well-established by quantum mechanics to necessarily be blurred. In fact, it’s a fundamental principle and mathematical law of quantum physics that there exists a level of size where behavior becomes non-physical. As well as being quite illogical by our normal standards of what logic even means to us.

Quantum physicists are well-aware that some form of ‘information’ must necessarily exist beneath the physical façade that we observe.

That constitutes real scientific knowledge in today’s modern science.

Therefore, the secular biologists who are waving off any type of non-physical “information” as being absurd and outside the realm of science, truly need to go back to college and learn some physics. Because what they are calling “unscientific” is simple wrong.

The modern science of quantum mechanics and quantum information (a field that is rapidly become technology I might add), indeed does hold that “non-physical” information must exist!

What do I mean by “non-physical”. I simply mean information that is beyond our physical ability to measure or examine in detail directly. And this is indeed a principle, and even a mathematical requirement, of Quantum Theory which is the most well-established theory of physics in all of science.

So, if I define my ‘godthing’ (as you call it) as nothing other than this non-physical field of information, then science supports my view! The most well-established theory of physics in science demands that my ‘godthing’ must exist in order for the scientific theory to work.

Like I say, if you want to have philosophical arguments about the precise meaning and definition of my ‘godthing’, then so be it. But to suggest that it conflicts with science is utter nonsense. Modern science demands that my ‘godthing’ must exist.

Where: I simply define my ‘godthing’ as the “non-physical information" that underlies and creates "physical reality”

This is a thesis that would be perfectly acceptable by any university. It’s based entirely on sound principles of what is currently known in science. Albeit, it is also a mere conjecture in the totality of scope. I’m not claiming to have ‘proof’ of anything (other than possibly showing that secular biologists are totally out of line when they claim that science does not support the idea or existence of non-physical information)

Biologists who make that claim, are simply blowing hot air that the real science of physics does not even support.

Conflating between information and data.

The difference makes a big DIFFERENCE.



Carry on. I do not intend to debate anyone's transcendental grounds... I am of Taoist thought in that regard. The concept of anything possibly existing independently of time and space, beyond appearance, is beyond our ability to mentally grasp... necessarily so.

We can know that knowledge is limited to appearances. We cannot know what may or may not exist beyond that.

Hi James...



Arcamedees...

Be cool!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-cloning_theorem


Ahhhh... I see. They don't know what exists in the quantum fields. I think my question was poorly worded.

They do know that whatever it is cannot be duplicated nor predicted, for it is essentially unknown. Makes sense to me.

Thanks slow, James...