God

[Amara]

wtf

I kind of agree and disagree at the same time.

I agree that scope has a lot to do with it, Ill use mathematics as an example because its simple and applies to everything including cause and effect.

If you were to teach someone only ten numbers, 0 thru to 9, they would have no way to comprehend anything outside of those boundaries to begin with. How do you comprehend negative numbers, or 100, if all you know is 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9?

However, eventually you use what you have to understand and work out the rest. The number 100 can be explained as 4 lots of 5 lots of 5, which fits into the narrow scope.

I think in the same way we are, or will be, capable of understanding things like this in the future because we understand universal constants, we understand mathematics, which is the universal language, and everything relates to mathematics. Even God has to conform to mathematics, and anything that came before God has to as well.

So we have the tools, we have part of the puzzle, we just dont have the whole scope. But we can use our current scope to understand the greater scope.


Anyway, this is a rant now, so Ill stop it for now

Yeah that was more or less what I was saying that we will have the capacity to understand in the future but at this point I dont believe we fully comprehend the 'mathematics' especially if we limit any potential answers specifically to 'cause and effect.' That's not to say we never will.

 

[Rukas]

wtf

Yeah that was more or less what I was saying that we will have the capacity to understand in the future but at this point I dont believe we fully comprehend the 'mathematics' especially if we limit any potential answers specifically to 'cause and effect.' That's not to say we never will.

Yeah I agree, I think we limit ourselves too much to what we've been told is correct.

I think Religious people limit themselves too much to what their book has told them and fail to realize that that was meant to be applied 2000 years ago and is written to that scope.

To use your Matrix analogy, the hardest thing Neo had to do was to disregard everything he "knew" to be true, he had to first realize there was no spoon.

I think we face a similar problem, we need to realize what we know, is limited and flawed. Once we open ourselves to the possibility of radically different truths and ways of thinking, then the answers will come to us.

The problem is that, even in realizing that, we still realize it in a current scope. Its not simply as easy as saying "there is no spoon" or whatever, because even believing it relies on current principles of existence and traps itself in the same limited scope of perspective.

The only way I know how to explain it is from a coders point of view. If you have a statement, its limited in scope.

For example

{
IF believe there is a spoon
THEN there is a spoon
ELSE IF believe there is no spoon
THEN there is more to it
}

Yet, its not simply a matter of knowing there is more, because your scope is still limited inside the { } tags, you still cant see outside it and you're still stuck in the same scope. So its not the realization, its the ability to see past, beyond and before the realization that matters.


Its like Ive always said, religious people are brainwashed by religion, and atheists are brainwashed by science, but its still the same scope, it's still the same IF ELSE statment.

 

[Amara]

wtf

To use your Matrix analogy, the hardest thing Neo had to do was to disregard everything he "knew" to be true, he had to first realize there was no spoon.

My point exactly.

I think we face a similar problem, we need to realize what we know, is limited and flawed. Once we open ourselves to the possibility of radically different truths and ways of thinking, then the answers will come to us.

Yep.

The problem is that, even in realizing that, we still realize it in a current scope. Its not simply as easy as saying "there is no spoon" or whatever, because even believing it relies on current principles of existence and traps itself in the same limited scope of perspective.

But if we open the current scope, more could be gained. What I dont know because we are not yet able to do so.

Yet, its not simply a matter of knowing there is more, because your cope is still limited inside the { } tags, you still cant see outside it and you're still stuck int he same scope. So its not the realization, its the ability to see past, beyond and before the realization that matters.

Right. Realising there is no spoon doesnt make the spoon bend, but the realisation generates the ability to move further than established theories, (hopefully) resulting in an answer to the posed question.

 

[Rukas]

wtf

Right. Realising there is no spoon doesnt make the spoon bend, but the realisation generates the ability to move further than established theories, (hopefully) resulting in an answer to the posed question.

Exactly.

 

[Khaled]

Ok.
You said energy can come to exist in emptyness, but that energy had to be somewhere that wasn't empty. Where did that come from or who or what created that. I don't think I'd say emptyness is god or whatever. More like it gave whatever the room to create, it's not neccessarily the creator.

i know that religious people, or anyone who believes in God as a supreme living being, can have a hard time acceptind the idea that a creator can be nothingness, but if you think about it, it makes a lot more sense than any common percepton about God today.

you're saying energy had to be somewhere wich was not empty, but this is only true if you're thinking about it in a context of space and time (it had to be somewhere else, before). But if you can imagine something where time and space don't exist, in this case the causality logic doesn't stand.

Another reason why it's so hard to imagine is because we can only express ideas and things in our current logic and we cannot but associate it with the acual world. The idea that void makes way for the creation of energy, is actually a very old scientific maxim ("la nature a horreur du vide" ie, nature hate emptyness) which can only be simulated by the fact that empty space gets filled when in contact with air, or water. This theorem has been proven wrong as it was explain by the basic laws of physics and pressure. Even Einstein had to admit that "stopping time/space" requires an infinite amount of energy.

In eastern spirutuality, the Ah-Oh-Mah, more commonly known as Aom, or Om, is the basic sound vibration, or the basic energy. in Islam in arabic, "Allahomma", which souds a lot similar, is a way to address God in some prayer. The 1st line of the bible "In the beginning was the word"... as in the basic energy that came out of nowhere is what created everything.

In mysticism, enlightenment is often achieved through getting into a state of total void. Many meditations are attempts to stop thinking, or stop being physically attached to the world through getting into a state of Shunya (emptyness).

IMO there are way too much coincidences between science and different religions about this subject not to be taken seriously

 

[ARon]

It's not that I'm relegious but it is hard for me to see how energy can just pop up into emptyness. Where was it before or what created the energy, how did it transform and so forth. How can nothing create? You said imagine something where time and space doesn't exist. Isn't space really the same thing as emptyness. It's easy for me to see what your saying but there are too many questions from my point of view. I like what you said about each religion though, that is quite something to think about.

 

[_carmi]

wtf

I wouldn't imagine that is easier. Without a "God" there are no answers to the specific question - the explanations are more complex and varied, the questions endless. Pinning it down to religion relieves the complexity because there is somewhat of an answer (right or wrong). Unless of course, people dont care to ask the question then it's a case of ignorance is bliss and that works for most of us.

For my part I believe we are limited by our scientific explanation of cause and effect - that is our interpretation of existence. Yet we are questioning something which I believe is beyond cause and effect - more complicated than that and therefore beyond our capacity to understand at this point in time. To be able to answer the question we would have to broaden our scope of perspective... it's like bending the spoon in the matrix, we have to first get to a point where we can say, there is no spoon. *rambling crap now* I'll shut up.

well when god first existed, religion said that earth is the center of the universe. then science proved it wrong. god is an easy answer to all the questions that science has not manage to get yet. but someday i believe that our technology and our capabily of understanding things will expand and we will then find the answers to those questions that until now has found as an answer god. god is an invention to answer those questions. has someone ever proved that god existed? no. and god himself cannot explain this answer. the say god will be proven to exist i'll believe it. until then, i'll keep believing he is an invention.

okay i dont know if this sounds right, i'm pretty tired now. but whatever if you're not agreeing with this well that is what i believe in. i dont know if it sounds dumb or something even tho in my head it sounds clear. i know many of you will definitly not agree with this.

 

[Amara]

wtf

^
That is all well and good but why are you quoting me seeing as I was speaking of something different (the complexity without God as opposed to the simplicity of the 'invention of God') and not discrediting your earlier post anyway...

 

[Khaled]

It's not that I'm relegious but it is hard for me to see how energy can just pop up into emptyness. Where was it before or what created the energy, how did it transform and so forth. How can nothing create? You said imagine something where time and space doesn't exist. Isn't space really the same thing as emptyness. It's easy for me to see what your saying but there are too many questions from my point of view. I like what you said about each religion though, that is quite something to think about.

space isn't the same thing as emptyness. Emptyness is where space and time dont exist. We can only understand emptyness as empty space but it's not the same.
If space doesn't exist, there's no such thing as here or somewhere else
If time doesn't exist, there's no such thing as before or after.

When you say energy just pops out into emptyness, you're considering a time frame in which energy came to existence at a certain point in time.
But if time/space aren't there, you can't use the laws of physics or logic, because something can exist and not exist at the same time.

how did it transform and so forth

once the energy is there, the rest is relatively easier to explain, or at east to understand and to accept.

It's easy for me to see what your saying but there are too many questions from my point of view

i don't claim to be able to explain creation, but i think this theory is more valid than others, and it does not contradict science (the big bang), nor religion, since this theory actuarry springs from eastern religions.

 

[_carmi]

^
That is all well and good but why are you quoting me seeing as I was speaking of something different (the complexity without God as opposed to the simplicity of the 'invention of God') and not discrediting your earlier post anyway...

i quoted for:

I wouldn't imagine that is easier. Without a "God" there are no answers to the specific question - the explanations are more complex and varied, the questions endless. Pinning it down to religion relieves the complexity because there is somewhat of an answer (right or wrong). Unless of course, people dont care to ask the question then it's a case of ignorance is bliss and that works for most of us.

For my part I believe we are limited by our scientific explanation of cause and effect - that is our interpretation of existence. Yet we are questioning something which I believe is beyond cause and effect - more complicated than that and therefore beyond our capacity to understand at this point in time. To be able to answer the question we would have to broaden our scope of perspective... it's like bending the spoon in the matrix, we have to first get to a point where we can say, there is no spoon. *rambling crap now* I'll shut up.

even tho i think quoting you was not necessary as i now realise your post is totally not about the same topic than me. lol..

 

[Illuminattile]

wtf

well when god first existed, religion said that earth is the center of the universe. then science proved it wrong. god is an easy answer to all the questions that science has not manage to get yet. but someday i believe that our technology and our capabily of understanding things will expand and we will then find the answers to those questions that until now has found as an answer god. god is an invention to answer those questions. has someone ever proved that god existed? no. and god himself cannot explain this answer. the say god will be proven to exist i'll believe it. until then, i'll keep believing he is an invention.

God will never be proven, but he'll never be disproven either. It's just not possible. And no matter how much we can answer with science, some people will always look to religion. There are plenty of religious people out there who know deep down that what they believe in is probably wrong, but they deceive themselves because sometimes that's easier than having to deal with the truth.

 

[_carmi]

wtf

God will never be proven, but he'll never be disproven either. It's just not possible. And no matter how much we can answer with science, some people will always look to religion. There are plenty of religious people out there who know deep down that what they believe in is probably wrong, but they deceive themselves because sometimes that's easier than having to deal with the truth.

yeah and i respect those people for their beliefs.

 

[Flipmo]

wtf

dont focus on the past, focus on the future. who cares how the world is created. instead of that, focus on how to preserve our world form being destructed. lol

Carmi, I never thought I'd ever see a reply like this from you. lol.

 

[_carmi]

wtf

Carmi, I never thought I'd ever see a reply like this from you. lol.

and why is that?

 

[Flipmo]

and why is that?

I dunno, maybe cause im used to seeing you in 'My Block' forum, but I just noticed you post alot here.

So I best shut my mouth. :sad:

 

[_carmi]

I dunno, maybe cause im used to seeing you in 'My Block' forum, but I just noticed you post alot here.

So I best shut my mouth. :sad:

well i do sometimes post here not all the time. tho. it happens sometimes when i feel bright or when im tired and feel like trying to post intelligently.

 

[7 Syns]

I actually believe that the universe is a repeating occurance. I believe that before the big bang there was a universe which inevitably crumbled beneath it's own weight. Then again, then again and then again. Life is however chance, Earth was lucky this time around but think of the circumstances...

Inbetween Mars & Jupiter there's an astroid belt, many believe it used to be a planet.. That would explain A) the possibility of Mars being inhabitat by life due to the frozen caps and B) Earth being slightly tilted..

But thats all just circumstance, it happened. A reason? No I don't think so. I believe we evolved because we forced ourselves too. I mean look at it this way, there used to be dinosaurs at the start which hunted alone.. then they realized hunting in packs would be more sufficient, they evolved to suit themselves. Thats what humans did aswell.

The most rational explanation for God is that the Earth itself is God.. We were born here, we die here.. it provides us with everything we need and more commonly destroy's us with natrual disasters as we get more ruthless as a being..

In contrast, it's all opinions. The universe is so big that it'll take forever to find the secrets. Makes for a good movie though doesn't it?

peace.

 

[not really ken]

wtf

God will never be proven, but he'll never be disproven either. It's just not possible. And no matter how much we can answer with science, some people will always look to religion. There are plenty of religious people out there who know deep down that what they believe in is probably wrong, but they deceive themselves because sometimes that's easier than having to deal with the truth.

everything you say about religious people knowing deep down they are wrong can be applied to other categories of people also.
And what do you mean 'answer with science'. You say you can't disprove the existance of God, so what are you answering with science. And alot of scietific theories require as much faith as religion.

 

[Illuminattile]

wtf

And what do you mean 'answer with science'. You say you can't disprove the existance of God, so what are you answering with science. And alot of scietific theories require as much faith as religion.

carmi talked about people turning to religion to explain things that science couldn't. People used Gods to explain the weather, to explain how planets were formed, why there were stars in the sky...all because they didn't have any other explanation. Even if science proved evolution beyond all reasonable doubt, people would still find a role for God in the matter.

 

[Bender]

All we have is ideas and concepts on how we came to be an existence, these being created to our own conscience, not by the the uncaused cause that supposedly brought us to be.

Since we don't have a direct link to our source, we can't, so to speak, go up and ask it a question. What if it speaks an entirely different language? This is how I view the concept of creation. Maybe our intellectual powers aren't advanced enough to comprehend something so Vast.