opinion

['ol Perfessor]

I forgot the name of the man that said, "Were there not a God, We should have to invent Him". .....and so it has proceeded through the ages that leaps, knowledge, consensus, introspection each brings us closer to the invention that when all is said and done has created us. The ultimate circle of life. We create the God that then creates us. Proof? We are. ...the inscrutable 'ol perfessor

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by 'ol Perfessor
I forgot the name of the man that said, "Were there not a God, We should have to invent Him

That would be Nietzsche(sp?)...

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by 'ol Perfessor
I forgot the name of the man that said, "Were there not a God, We should have to invent Him". .....and so it has proceeded through the ages that leaps, knowledge, consensus, introspection each brings us closer to the invention that when all is said and done has created us. The ultimate circle of life. We create the God that then creates us. Proof? We are. ...the inscrutable 'ol perfessor

What the fuck are you talking about?
I mean that in the nicest way...

 

['ol Perfessor]

thanks for your interest in my blather. the paragraph relays my contention that God is indeed our invention. A compendium of our progress , knowledge, and ability to recognize Him, ( as opposed to the exclusions and damnations of men ....however lofty their positions). Like the monolith in Clarke's 2001 once observed and tallied said target moves on and more questions arise than answers. But the ultimate conclusion,( and lets face it no one but the feeblest high school science teacher lends any creedence to the self organize by accident theory,[ although so what if that were true the organization of said dust is "how" God is "what"]), is that we are; therefore He is. Remember NOTHING is impossible.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by 'ol Perfessor
thanks for your interest in my blather. the paragraph relays my contention that God is indeed our invention. A compendium of our progress , knowledge, and ability to recognize Him, ( as opposed to the exclusions and damnations of men ....however lofty their positions). Like the monolith in Clarke's 2001 once observed and tallied said target moves on and more questions arise than answers. But the ultimate conclusion,( and lets face it no one but the feeblest high school science teacher lends any creedence to the self organize by accident theory,[ although so what if that were true the organization of said dust is "how" God is "what"]), is that we are; therefore He is. Remember NOTHING is impossible.

If your contention is that G-d is indeed man's invention, then by the same reasoning who indeed invented man?

This is called circular reasoning.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by ajwps
If your contention is that G-d is indeed man's invention, then by the same reasoning who indeed invented man?

This is called circular reasoning.

Great question.

ol perfessor, if God does not exist, and life didn't spontaneously form (as you say only feeble high school teachers believe) then where did life originate?

 

[musicman]

Originally posted by ajwps
If your contention is that G-d is indeed man's invention, then by the same reasoning who indeed invented man?

Al Gore.

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by musicman
Al Gore.

:clap1: :clap1: :clap1:

The Brownshirts are coming!

 

['ol Perfessor]

First take time out of your equation. Then, picture the entirety of spacetime as one entity. Conclusions are that the universe is relatively,( get it relatively hahaha), young. Most of the universe then is in the future. ( Approximately 80% or so). Second we are here. Try to imagine how far the seed has come in the first iteration whose end we occupy. Extrapolate to a far off future. what is so far fetched then about the invention inventing the inventor? Recall and observe that nature works small to big, bottoms up. (an example is an oak, capitalism,[bottom up], compared to communism,[top down]), God needs only to be very small to suceed, flourish, and invent a universe for us to occupy, restlessly investigate, and adore Him.....He loves us.
Parallel support comes to us in Bell's theory, the strong anthropic principle.
Circular reasoning as a child's game and the way a child would think not withstanding, the facts support the conclusion. Acorns become trees, humans grow from the union of two cells, the universe is huge from an unimaginably tiny beginnning, there's thirty-some hockey teams........(that's proof of something right there). the 'ol P

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by musicman
Al Gore.

Bam. Right between the eyes.

:roflmao:

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by 'ol Perfessor
First take time out of your equation. Then, picture the entirety of spacetime as one entity. Conclusions are that the universe is relatively,( get it relatively hahaha), young. Most of the universe then is in the future. ( Approximately 80% or so). Second we are here. Try to imagine how far the seed has come in the first iteration whose end we occupy. Extrapolate to a far off future. what is so far fetched then about the invention inventing the inventor? Recall and observe that nature works small to big, bottoms up. (an example is an oak, capitalism,[bottom up], compared to communism,[top down]), God needs only to be very small to suceed, flourish, and invent a universe for us to occupy, restlessly investigate, and adore Him.....He loves us.
Parallel support comes to us in Bell's theory, the strong anthropic principle.
Circular reasoning as a child's game and the way a child would think not withstanding, the facts support the conclusion. Acorns become trees, humans grow from the union of two cells, the universe is huge from an unimaginably tiny beginnning, there's thirty-some hockey teams........(that's proof of something right there). the 'ol P

This is circular reasoning at its best, and thus not logical.

First, you ask us to take time out of the equation, which is not possible for the universe, which is bound by time.
Then, you tell us that the universe is "young." Young is a comparative measurement of time, so you have just reintroduced time back into your argument. Also, what is the universe young compared to? God? A creator? Its expected life span? And how would we know that life span anyway? You talk about extrapolating to a future long off, but you've told us to eliminate time.
Next, you say that an invention can create its inventor. Impossible. Without the creator, a creation cannot exist. There has to be a beginning to something. Things grow and procreate/recreate, but everything has to have a beginning.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by gop_jeff

This is circular reasoning at its best, and thus not logical.

First, you ask us to take time out of the equation, which is not possible for the universe, which is bound by time.
Then, you tell us that the universe is "young." Young is a comparative measurement of time, so you have just reintroduced time back into your argument. Also, what is the universe young compared to? God? A creator? Its expected life span? And how would we know that life span anyway? You talk about extrapolating to a future long off, but you've told us to eliminate time.
Next, you say that an invention can create its inventor. Impossible. Without the creator, a creation cannot exist. There has to be a beginning to something. Things grow and procreate/recreate, but everything has to have a beginning.

Hey GopJeff what makes you think that the universe is bound by TIME? You actually admit that TIME is relative or a "comparative measurement."

Physicists now believe that time is relative to speed (velocity) or to gravity (the heavier gravity of an object the slower becomes time around that now very very heavy compressed mass or object.)

We see time from our perspective on the earth but there are places thought to exist in which there is no time (no past, present or future).

Do you believe that the Creator (the watchmaker) "lives" in a place with a watch to keep track of earth time? You say that "everything has to have a beginning."

Something to think about.

What if the consciousness in which WE exist is the same timelessness (dimension not universe) discussed above but that for some reason, we assume we exist in a time, place and a solid universe which is nothing more than a presumption on the part of men?

Just a thought...... But there are now many scientists who are actually finding evidence that this is the case.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by ajwps
Hey GopJeff what makes you think that the universe is bound by TIME? You actually admit that TIME is relative or a "comparative measurement."

No, what I said is that "Young is a comparative measurement of time," meaning one cannot talk about young or old without the concept of time. And yes, I do believe that everything in the universe is bound by time - but not God, who is the creator of the universe and the laws of science, which includes time.

Physicists now believe that time is relative to speed (velocity) or to gravity (the heavier gravity of an object the slower becomes time.)

We see time from our perspective on the earth but there are places thought to exist in which there is no time (no past, present or future).

Do you believe that the Creator (the watchmaker) "lives" in a place with a watch to keep track of earth time? You say that "everything has to have a beginning."

I think that Scripture is quite clear that God is outside of time. He calls Himself "the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End," and tells Moses that His name is "I AM." God's existence is the only one that has no source; He is the source of all that exists, but He exists independently of any creating source. Sorry, I should have clarified that point in my original post.

Something to think about.

What if the consciousness in which WE exist is the same timelessness (dimension not universe) discussed above but that for some reason, we assume we exist in a time, place and a solid universe which is nothing more than a presumption on the part of men?

Just a thought...... But there are now many scientists who are actually finding evidence that this is the case.

Time is defined as the interval between two events. One second (science's standard measurement of time) is defined by the speed of light in a vacuum, which is approximately 300,000,000 meters/second. Thus, the interval of time that it takes for light to travel 3.333... x 10^-9 meters (approximately) is one second.

We must exist 'in time,' and we know this because there are intervals between events in the universe. If there were no such thing as time, there would be no such intervals. I think your question borders on surrealism, which I personally reject.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by gop_jeff

No, what I said is that "Young is a comparative measurement of time," meaning one cannot talk about young or old without the concept of time. And yes, I do believe that everything in the universe is bound by time - but not God, who is the creator of the universe and the laws of science, which includes time.

Then you now assume that young or old is a compartive measurement of time. But whose time? Remember that if you believe Genesis, then the first 3 days of creation were measured without a sun to determine a 24 hour earth day. What if Genesis were written by a Creator whose time is not earth 24 hour days but His TIME from a perspective outside of our time. Then those 7 days of creation could have been G-d's time scale which is equivalent of billions of years to the blink of an eye from a distant perspective from the world in which we imagine we live.

What if the Creator made human consciousness to experience 'our time' and 'a solid world with planets and suns and galaxies' that exist only as He wants us to assume to exist? I said that physicists have proven that time is not an attribute of things but actually a 'type of particle.' Why do you think that the Genesis chapter you read in versions of the English language are not really metaphors with encrypted codes written in the orignal language where another reality of G-d exists. Remember you are interpreting words written from translations of translations of translations.

I think that Scripture is quite clear that God is outside of time. He calls Himself "the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End," and tells Moses that His name is "I AM." God's existence is the only one that has no source; He is the source of all that exists, but He exists independently of any creating source. Sorry, I should have clarified that point in my original post.

What you or I think of what G-d actually meant is totally irrelevant. What if everything (even our own consciousness) is really a part of the Uknown Creator but with something He called Free Will. Or the choice to help in His creation by following the path of good rather than evil. For He stated that your reality is not His reality and that your wisdom is not His.

I am just saying that there is a lot more to existence than any of us can possibly imagine. You are following the literal interpretation of His words in English. Hardly proof of anyting.

Time is defined as the interval between two events. One second (science's standard measurement of time) is defined by the speed of light in a vacuum, which is approximately 300,000,000 meters/second. Thus, the interval of time that it takes for light to travel 3.333... x 10^-9 meters (approximately) is one second.

Really. Are you sure?

We must exist 'in time,' and we know this because there are intervals between events in the universe. If there were no such thing as time, there would be no such intervals. I think your question borders on surrealism, which I personally reject.

Is there really only what you personally believe or reject? You are not talking about surrealism but more like metaphysical concepts now being investigated for validity by the greatest minds of our time.

 

[Shazbot]

I like your ideas (or atleast the ideas which you have stated), ajwps.

-Douglas

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by Shazbot
I like your ideas (or atleast the ideas which you have stated), ajwps.

-Douglas

These are not my ideas or concepts. Scientists have discovered some amazing things that they really cannot explain but that can be best understood when we get out of our box and see things from a different perspective. Think of it. Can you define the borders of this universe we think we are in? What shape does the universe have, what is the border made of and what does it look like and what is on the other side of the universe that seems to be expanding?

The following is an article from Scientific American of just one concept of what I have found.

http://www.holomall.com/Holographic Universe.htm

 

[5stringJeff]

My whole point, aj, was that ol' Professor's argument is circular and therefore invalid.

I don't particularly care to discuss the shape of the universe or the construct of time because, to be honest, I live in this universe that God created, and I am bound by the laws of this universe, which include things like time and the speed of light. (And sorry for the previous mistake - the speed of light in vacuum is exactly 299,792,458 m/s, and one meter is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second. Sorry for being off by .06918%.)

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
My whole point, aj, was that ol' Professor's argument is circular and therefore invalid.

I don't particularly care to discuss the shape of the universe or the construct of time because, to be honest, I live in this universe that God created, and I am bound by the laws of this universe, which include things like time and the speed of light. (And sorry for the previous mistake - the speed of light in vacuum is exactly 299,792,458 m/s, and one meter is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second. Sorry for being off by .06918%.)

At least that is the way it appears to you! You have been taught these facts and therefore it has to be true or you wouldn't sense your own reality. You know you are solid and you live in a solid world.

BUT DO YOU

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8245

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by ajwps
At least that is the way it appears to you! You have been taught these facts and therefore it has to be true or you wouldn't sense your own reality. You know you are solid and you live in a solid world.

BUT DO YOU

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8245

Wow. Have I just entered a dimension called The Twilight Zone???

Do-do-do-do, do-do-do-do!

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
Wow. Have I just entered a dimension called The Twilight Zone???

Do-do-do-do, do-do-do-do!

Careful there GopJeff. You might walk to far and fall off this flat earth of ours.

Afterall everyone knows what they have been told that our flat surfaced earth sits in space on the back of a turtle.

That was the Twilight Zone of an earlier century when everyone was as certain of yourself about the reality of your senses.

Keep on Truckin...........