I can prove the existance of God. Right now.

In 'Time Journey's' by Paul Halpern there is, however, paradoxically the Uphill Model of Time for the explaining the progressive notion in recent times (people didn't always believe in Progress), and the the Downhill Model for the explaining of the deceptive cycles of Time, which for the molecules, which you believe for the differential control by Energy and the variational flood of matter, can only find mathematical repetitions of temporal validations. The explanation is of and for using mechanisms in time.

It is an interesting book even at the end portraying the means and patterns of the subconscious recesses of the mind which the author holds judgmentally realizable through wormholes through of temporalizing time through Time. In our dreams we really go back in time through a wormhole which is uphill to the downhill... bla, bla. Good stuff.

 

Uh...what?

 

I agree with Flux. The only thing I can say about famewalk's post is something like "??????????????".

 

I'm right there with woodsman and my dawg flux (capacitor?) that brother famewalk's posting is tongue twisted...I think he out smarted himself or confused himself.

 

I think I got it, but . . . no, I . . . MAN! . . . Ouch, my frontal lobes . . . (Sigh) . . . wait !!! . . . I think . . . maybe . . . it means . . . good is a higher state of being (?) . . . and time . . . is . . .

Peace and Love

 

I can explain exactly what it is in two small words, Bull Shit!!

 

As the old Latin saying translate: bullshit buggers brains.

famewalk reminds me of a convo about modern art recently. People are encouraged to believe that they can't understand it, so they don't try, and lose the critical faculties to actually say "that's bollocks". In a religion/philosophy forum, I'd imagine people are too scared of appearing ignorant to say so if they think, suspect, and as near as possible to know that someone's talking out of their meatus.

 

I'm glad you make it clear that your decision not to believe in God is a personal choice based on your perceptions of available evidence. My belief in God is also a choice based on different perceptions. I think your use of the term "random" needs clarification. While I admit that there is a lot of randomness in the universe (in the statistical sense), there are also non-random processes (e.g., natural selection) accounting for remarkable order, regularity, and "fine tuning". The question is whether or not these are the result of ultimately blind "natural" processes, or whether something more intelligent is involved. You raise some considerations that might support a decision not to believe in God, especially the problem of evil. I personally find the usual religious explanations--free will, testing, character-building, Satanic influence, etc.--to be unsatisying. I don't think God is the Omnipoent Dude in the Sky, who watches over us and could wash our car, walk our dog or open doors for us if we ask Him nicely. Non-monotheists viewed their Gods as powerful without attributing omnipotence to Mardok, Baal, Shamesh, Dagon, Jupiter, Apollo, Mithras, etc. As a Christian Panentheist who's into Process Theology, I'm more inclined to accept Tillich's Ground of Being, or Saint Paul's definition of God as the One "in whom we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28). But I do believe there's substantial evidence (not proof) to support what William James calls a "working hypothesis" that there's something Big and (hopefully) Benevolent Out There and Within Us accounting for the remarkable reality of our existence, consciousness, and intelligence, as well as the wonder of our universe. I'll admit I've been heavily influenced by Professor Paul Davies' books, The Mind of God and THe Goldilocks Enigma, in which he considers various theories of the anthropic principle and the origin of the universe, and concludes that some kind of intelligence or "life principle" is the most parsimonious explanation of the facts. But that's me. I respect the decisons of others to bet on different hypotheses on the basis of their own perceptions and assessments of the evidence.

 

:cheers2::cheers2:

Amen brother

 

Okiefreak, You asked for clarification on 'randomness'. By that I mean things form by themselves as opposed to being the product of somekind of divine plan. Things like natural selection which you mentioned are by that definition random, in that they form on the basis of circumstance rather than pre-planed architecture.

The way the cards fall in a game of black jack is fundmentally random, even though certain patterns may be able to be followed by card counting or techniques like it. Because there is a pattern doesn't mean the deck was pre arranged by an unseen force, it just means the cards happen to fall a certain way in the deck and the pattern of their appearance as the cards are dealt can be predicted with a certain degree of probability. The universe as a whole workspretty much the same way. That sense of order coming out of randomness has lead a lot of people to a lot of misguided conclusions about things being predesigned as opposed to the elements of the universe falling into what they mistakenly percive as a divine plan. Yes, certain things have order, but its not necesarily an order that was preplanned and built from some cosmic blueprint by an unseen force.

Under the right conditions, hydrogen molecules will fuse themselves into helium molecules, That doesn't indicate that god created helium, it just means means that certain factors were in place to change a simple molecule into a slightly more complicated molecule.

I am also an admirer of Paul Davies, having read a few of his works. My favorite is "about time" where he explains temporal physics in a basic, easy to understand format. His point of view in that work is his personal belief that a god exists, but the science is explained on it own merits, so that a god is not a vital component in his view of the creation of the universe, but not one that is to be excluded due to its lack of evidence either. In that sense he has left the belief in or acceptance of a god up to the reader so he can make up his own mind.

And I agre with that. It has to be left to the individual based on his own experiences to decide on the existance of a god. All I can say is that to me a god does not and cannot exist.

 

if god can not exist then take this" " OFF?

 

When one has something to do with the other then I will.

 

Ordinarily, the term "random" is used more technically in statistics and science to mean chance happenings, characterized by a probability distribution or events in which all outcomes are equally likely, as opposed to outcomes determined by natural laws. Dawkins makes a big point of showing that natural selection is a process, in which randomly generated mutations are non-randomly selected by their adaptability to their environment. You seem to use it to denote naturalistic instead of supernaturalistic accounts of phenomena.

 

Wrap your heads around this... no one knows the origin of life yet, because the research just hasn't led us to it yet. Just as no one really knew about gravity, or that earth wasn't the center of the universe, before research was done. Once your combine the mathematical and scientific principles to these physical sciences you figure out what's really going on. I'm sure with enough time and research the "origin of life" can be found and also the origin of the big bang.

I'm very surprised that no one has delved into the subconcious. The mind we have is a very complex organ, capable of millions of difference states of conciousness. No one person has the same concious state, no one, everyone percieves the world and their place in it differently. I believe someone earlier on mentioned how animals have states of awareness but not awareness of the self. The subconcious, which is everything that your body does that you are NOT conciously aware of (heart beating is a good example; for your heart to beat your brain has to send millions of neural signal to your lungs to supply it with oxygen to get the heart to pump blood throughout the body, you are never truly aware of these signals, but your subconcious does them for you so you may live), is a lot like the awareness of an animal. At one time, when we as a lifeform did not have as great intelligence, we might have noticed these things a lot more. It's not important to us now. Think how busy your life would seem if you had to manually turn on your heart or lungs. The brain itself over time developed to where we could be less busy with such things.

Time itself allowed for us our conciousness, through the development of the subconcious. During REM when we sleep, our "real world" conciousness(self-awareness) is turned off and we are entered into the subconcious. Most of us aren't aware we are asleep when we dream, or even that we're dreaming, because you're inside a completely different state of conicousness. It's only when we reenter the world of self-awareness that we realize we were dreaming.

Your level of conciousness and self-awareness when compared to someone who is mentally handicapped is so diverse and different that you could almost say mentally handicapped people are completely different sentient beings. The way they percieve the world is both of difficulty and confusion, something none of us could possibly imagine. It is the same way with people who suffer from any number of neural diseases (alzhiemer's for instance). You cannot imagine their level of conciousness.

If we truly have a soul, then where does it go when we sleep? Why is it always so difficult for most people to remember their dreams or their aspect of time whilst asleep? My theory: It's not needed. Our subconcious, what we expierence in sleep, does not need to recognize time, souls, dimensions, religion, or any of that. It only concerns itself with keeping our mind busy through REM and dream state so it may keep the body breathing and functioning correctly while the body rests itself (it's still running and working, but in a very very VERY relaxed state, one few expierence on a concious level). When we die... these processes of the body stops entirely, including the subconcious mind, and the brain rots back into the earth.

Explain to me what our subconcious is and why a supposed God would need to put that in place, and maybe then I'll start to follow your arguement.

 

Also for the record, I do not claim to be agnostic or athiest. I claim to be human.

 

Life!

 

All things come from God..something does not come from nothing..go outside and look as closely as you can at something that is not man made..a blade of grass, a leaf off of a tree, a dog, a lizard..whatever..you will see what the grand creator/designer has provided us for our enjoyment..lets dont even get started on the human brain..the most amazing thing on the planet..

 

your not brother

The broken cross stands for peace but you don't know that do you

 

The peace sign is a combination of semaphore symbols for the letters N and D ("Nuclear Disarmament") and was originally used as a statement against nuclear weapons.

If you're stoned enough to see a broken cross in the symbol then you're certainly living up to your username.

It's amazing when people try to make statements when they don't know the history of what they're talking about.

If its a "broken cross" as you put it, then why is it at odds with an atheist world view? The Christian symbol is an intact cross.

I hate to use a religious phrase, but god bless 'em, you've got to love the stoners.

 

Btw, if "eace:" is a broken cross, why is it inverted? for the arms of the cross to be respresented by the two diagonal lines, the the cross would either have to be upside down with the arms splaying upward (which is downward in this view cause its inverted), or the horizontal cross member would have to have severed in half, and both pieces fell to the ground at exactly the same angle on each side.

An inverted cross is Satanic, and a broken cross never had much to do with the religion to begin with, so what is your issue? I'm not religious. Most of the old school hippies I've talked to weren't either.

You're connecting things that don't connect man.