How did the Universe get here?

[itfitzme]

The spiritual created the physical, so in a sense I have always argued that. The only thing I have stated contrary to that is, physical science can't examine/evaluate spiritual evidence. I have also stated as a caveat, that we may one day discover a way for physical science to verify, falsify, quantify, observe and test spiritual nature.
...
I'm still not seeing this evidence you have that energy isn't spiritual.

And there in lies the very point.

That you don't see any evidence isn't proof that it might. A lack of a sign isn't a sign.

"The spirutual" is just so much bullshit.

You are both right. lack of proof isn't proof of the opposite, for either side.
it remains neither proven nor disproven.
even if it was proven, either way, it could still be wrong
and the opposite could be true. big fat deal.

next?

See, but there in is the point. Utter failure to prove god exist, over a period of 400+ years is proof that god doesn't exist.

If you lose your car keys and spend two hours ripping your bedroom apart to no avail, you have proven that your car keys are not in your room. And if two hours isn't, 400 + years by every single genius born to mankind is absolutely proof they are not.


There is even a telescope orbiting the Earth, peering deep into the darkness of space. And thwere aren't no ******* "spiritual" or "god" or "bla de bla bla bla". Shit, we even sent people around the moon, just to check the other side. Not to mention the particle accelerators that are miles in diameter, smashing together particles that are imconcievable small.

Really, how hard this to get. A failure to prove something doesn't exist isn't proof that it does. It isn't even proof that it might. A failure to prove that it does, in 400+ years of experiments proves it doesn't. And if really aren't sure yet, go stand naked with your back to a mirror. Stick your head between your legs and check to see if it is in your asshole. I'll bet you a hundred dollars it ain't in there either. How can I be so sure? For one thing, that is how sciemce works. And for another, you are not possibly stupid enough to think differently. You know it is correct and you'd be either a liar or insane to think otherwise. And even then, you'd still be wrong.

The problem you are having is you have very little knowledge about how vast and detailed is the collective knowlege of mankind. Go getna PhD in physics, enginnering, biology, psychology, economics, añd mathematics. Then, when you've personally looked under every one of those rock, come back. I'll bet you another hundred dollars you won't find it there either.

 

[edthecynic]

Really? Because it seems I am demonstrating that YOU don't have a clue!

It is perfectly obvious that you have absolutely no clue what energy is.

Do you know how the conservation of energy was initially concieved of and by whom?

How is thr energy of a physical object calculated?

You keep these words like you know wha they mean.

There are various ways energy is calculated, read eddy's "How energy is measured for dummies" to learn about those. Of course, his link didn't mention "dark energy" which actually comprises most of the energy in our universe.

Being able to measure energy doesn't prove it's not spiritual. I'm still waiting for that evidence to be submitted. So far, none of you have done that.

Not according to this

God is a spiritual form of energy, it can't be measured physically, if it could be, it wouldn't be spiritual in nature.

 

[Mr. H.]

However "it got here", there's no reason for us killing each other in the name of it's "creator".

 

[emilynghiem]

See, but there in is the point. Utter failure to prove god exist, over a period of 400+ years is proof that god doesn't exist.

If you lose your car keys and spend two hours ripping your bedroom apart to no avail, you have proven that your car keys are not in your room. And if two hours isn't, 400 + years by every single genius born to mankind is absolutely proof they are not.

Hi [MENTION=35236]itfitzme[/MENTION] thanks for taking the time to answer in detail I appreciate your patience and consistency

1. not, necessarily, it is not a matter of time that makes something proven or not
but a matter if the thing is true and the proof is consistent and not a false proof

a. it took humanity well over 400 years to prove that microbes existed
so if someone used that same criteria, and said if it wasn't proven in 500 years it didn't exist; but it got proven in 1000 years, then it was because it was true and was proven
not that it took too long without proving it

b. some proof could last for 400 years and then proven false
it is a matter of if it is consistent or not with science and truth
not how long the proof is believed that makes it true or not
http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/dinosaurdiscovery/a/How-Was-Apatosaurus-Discovered.htm

c. about keys in the car, it's not the matter of time it takes searching that proves it.
it is whether or not they are in there, and whether or not you find them

my keys could be slipped down the side of the trunk, and I never find them,
but 400 years without finding them doesn't prove they weren't in there because they are even though I couldn't find them

Note: to make an analogy with keys (this isn't a perfect analogy, but close enough to describe the difference, not exact)
this explains the difference in your approach and mine to finding that keys are universal to all people of all cultures:

I think you are approaching this like trying to find a "fixed definition" of what keys are
and disappointed these can't be found anywhere or are not universal.

If you take the American or European version of keys you look for metal heads or loops
or someone else may have the old fashioned keys. combination or padlocks,
or now digital codes look nothing alike yet they perform similar functions.

what if someone's culture uses something else
then we are not going to find these keys exist in all cultures

what if a culture only uses latches, or they use people as guards and don't use keys per se.
what is the equivalent in each culture of what we use keys for.

so my approach is to find what each person uses in place of keys.
if they don't use keys at all, what do they use?

it is like you are taking one fixed image or definition of keys, that have not been found anywhere,
while everyone else is using a different version of keys that you do not recognize as the same or equivalent.
I look at the function and the cultural equivalence and experience. you are looking at appearance.

2.

There is even a telescope orbiting the Earth, peering deep into the darkness of space. And thwere aren't no ******* "spiritual" or "god" or "bla de bla bla bla". Shit, we even sent people around the moon, just to check the other side.

what god are you looking for?
many people define god to be all things in creation.
so all this space and knowledge to explore it is part of god by how god is defined.
what kind of god are you expecting to find?
maybe that is false, so I agree that is not going to be proven
but it's not the point either.

I believe if god means something "that important to know" it would be universal
and accessible to all people. so god as "life, love truth wisdom" makes more sense.
these are things all people relate to or connect to in positive ways, so that is
conducive to good will which is the meaning of god's will.

3. Hey IFM I agree already that failure to prove something doesn't exist isn't proof that it does. I think that goes without saying. I agree ok. you are arguing with someone who agrees with you on this:

Really, how hard this to get. A failure to prove something doesn't exist isn't proof that it does. It isn't even proof that it might. A failure to prove that it does, in 400+ years of experiments proves it doesn't. And if really aren't sure yet, go stand naked with your back to a mirror. Stick your head between your legs and check to see ifcit is in your asshole. I'll bet you a hunred dollars it ain't in there either. How can I be so sure? For one thing, that is how sciemce works. And for another, you are not possibly stupid enough to think differently. You know it is correct and you'd be either a liar or insane to think otherwise. And even then, you'de still be wrong.

4.

"Professor Kurt Godel's incompleteness and undecidability theorems. With these two theorems, Godel proved that only God(s) can know truth(s). The rest of us have beliefs based on our perception of facts and accepted prior knowledge (e.g. Scripture, the Bible, Koran, Torah)."

http://www.chron.com/opinion/letter...s-Ashby-high-rise-Obamacare-faith-5094759.php

I agree with this quote. If we define God to be all knowledge or omniscience
while the rest of humanity is not omniscient but limited or prone to error in our perceptions,
then whether or not God exists only God can know all these things,
and the rest of us are depending on faith. we could all be wrong no matter what we believe or not,
and no matter what is proven or not, we could be wrong in our proof or interpretation of it

my point is proof of God is NOT NECESSARY
it CANNOT be done so of course there is no proof that will work

the important things about what God/Jesus/religions mean
can be proven by science and experience, so why not focus there

 

[itfitzme]

Hubris is thinkng you know more than 400+ years of hard core science.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear [MENTION=13101]edthecynic[/MENTION]
calling someone names just reflects on you

Dear [MENTION=36773]Boss[/MENTION]
1. yes "until someone provides proof that it isn't, it could still be so"
and even if they do provide proof, it could be wrong, so it could still be so
despite proof either for or against

2. no, just because spiritual things are shown to have physical effects
or measurement does not mean they are no longer spiritual

we could physically quantify and document spiritual experiences and occurrences
even measure the difference between positive and negative spiritual energy
and it is still spiritual

for example, we can prove that love and truth register as different
reactions in the brain, and we can still call these levels spiritual

3. since spiritual is a definition for something abstract, it is relative to people
if you don't call the collective level spiritual, it can be called something else

It is perfectly obvious that you have absolutely no clue what energy is.

Do you know how the conservation of energy was initially concieved of and by whom?

How is thr energy of a physical object calculated?

You keep these words like you know wha they mean.

There are various ways energy is calculated, read eddy's "How energy is measured for dummies" to learn about those. Of course, his link didn't mention "dark energy" which actually comprises most of the energy in our universe.

Being able to measure energy doesn't prove it's not spiritual. I'm still waiting for that evidence to be submitted. So far, none of you have done that.

Not according to this

God is a spiritual form of energy, it can't be measured physically, if it could be, it wouldn't be spiritual in nature.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hubris is thinkng you know more than 400+ years of hard core science.

only exceeded by your thinking you know better than
Goedel who proved only God could know if God exists or not if God exists
and the rest of us are going by faith

I already AGREE with you that just because it isn't proven not to exist,
this does NOT prove that it does.

I said I AGREED.

But when I point out that it is general knowledge
that nobody can prove without relying on faith if God exists or not,
that all humans could be wrong even if we do prove something,
you think you know better?

You think your conclusion is better than Goedel's?

And you think your knowledge trumps all the people's
experience and perceptions of their relationship with God.

Thousands of years and masses of populations who use the term God
to describe their understanding and experiences in life.

And you decide your knowledge and opinion is more
important than all people in history who had an opinion otherwise.

If you call it hubris to disagree with 400 years of not proving God
(when I cited proof that it cannot be proven and that's why it's not proven)

what do you call your attitude?

What is wrong with Goedel's argument that God cannot be known or proven
What is wrong with me agreeing with Goedel? [MENTION=35236]itfitzme[/MENTION]

 

[Boss]

Hubris is thinkng you know more than 400+ years of hard core science.

I already gave you an example of 2,000+ years of belief in Aristotle's "Gravity and Levity" not being proof that Newton's Laws of Motion didn't exist.

 

[Boss]

See, but there in is the point. Utter failure to prove god exist, over a period of 400+ years is proof that god doesn't exist.

Really, how hard this to get. A failure to prove something doesn't exist isn't proof that it does. It isn't even proof that it might. A failure to prove that it does, in 400+ years of experiments proves it doesn't.

LMAO... You are saying two contradictory things... Failure to prove something doesn't exist isn't proof it does, and failure to prove God exists is proof it doesn't.

As emily pointed out, even proof that something exists doesn't mean it actually does. To expound on this, did you know that every physics textbook in the world is wrong? They all state the universe is mostly comprised of atoms. This is incorrect, the universe is mostly comprised of dark matter and dark energy, not atoms.

For 2,000 years, man failed to prove Newton's Laws of Motion... didn't mean they didn't exist. Newton's Laws of Motion didn't suddenly begin to work when he discovered them. For 200,000 years, Jupiter wasn't proven to exist... doesn't mean it did not exist.

Physical experiments are useless trying to prove something spiritual exists. Doesn't mean something spiritual doesn't exist. Doesn't even mean it will always be impossible for physical experiments to prove.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hubris is thinkng you know more than 400+ years of hard core science.

I already gave you an example of 2,000+ years of belief in Aristotle's "Gravity and Levity" not being proof that Newton's Laws of Motion didn't exist.

See, but there in is the point. Utter failure to prove god exist, over a period of 400+ years is proof that god doesn't exist.

If you lose your car keys and spend two hours ripping your bedroom apart to no avail, you have proven that your car keys are not in your room. And if two hours isn't, 400 + years by every single genius born to mankind is absolutely proof they are not.

Dear [MENTION=35236]itfitzme[/MENTION] and [MENTION=36773]Boss[/MENTION]
1. what is preventing us from agreeing on Goedel's assertion that God can never be known or proven by man, only truth can be known by God
Am I not explaining this clearly?
That despite any proofs we could still be wrong and not know
or the truth (as we thought we knew it) could change

can you pls explain why this isn't clear and being agreed upon

2. I see similar arguments being made
a. if God isn't proven to exist, that doesn't mean God does exist
AGREED
b. if energy is not proven to be NOT spiritual, that doesn't mean it is spiritual
AGREED
those I agree with

why isn't this agreed upon when the terms are switched around:
c. if energy isn't proven to be spiritual, that doesn't mean it is spiritual
AGREED
d. if God is not proven to NOT exist, that does not mean God exists
AGREED

shouldn't we all agree with each other logically, since we are making similar arguments
but just in different contexts substituting different things to be proven ?

3. I gave an example that it took well over 400 years
before humanity proved microbes exist

so how can going over 400 years without proving something
be assumed as proof that thing does not exist

proof of microbes came along after that.
so these do exist even though they weren't proven for centuries

4. I believe we can prove that people can reach a consensus
agreement on the meaning of God and Jesus and do not need to prove these things exist

this requires organizing all people in groups over the internet to form a consensus

so this development cannot even take place until after the internet is created
and people agree to use it for this purpose

are you going to say this is an impossible event
because it has not happened in the past 400 years

what if like the microbes that required microscopes
we didn't have the technology to prove these things back then

but we develop them later, what if it takes longer than 400 years
so what

 

[Boss]

Hi [MENTION=36773]Boss[/MENTION] I happen to find your references to scientists and how their discoveries were treated, as inspiring. I'm glad I'm not the only one saying that.

Maybe you deserve some honor on the level of these scientists.
If you can follow up on the premise backed by Dr. Scott Peck
that the spiritual process of deliverance from demons could be scientifically
studied and quantified as a valid form of diagnosis and treatment,
you could be the next doctor to get laughed at until you win your Nobel.

what a dual honor! If you want me to send you his book, where
he first thought these demons were not real but mental delusions
then changed his mind, but as a scientist he acknowledged the spiritual
experiences could not be proven, only the observable changes in the
minds and behavior in the patients from incureable schizophrenia
to normal working mindsets. please PM me. I am happy to work with
you to get grants to replicate and pursue formal medical research studies.

I do believe this is Nobel level work to bridge the gap between science and religion.

Thank you, emily. I am very flattered by those remarks. I have read some of Dr. Pecks work and it dovetails nicely with that of other scientists who have discovered the power of spirituality in treating cancer patients. My mother was diagnosed with stage 4 breast cancer last year, and is undergoing treatment at Cancer Treatment Centers of America. One of the avenues of treatment is spiritual connection. They use it because it has shown positive results.

If you do some research into Alcoholics Anonymous, one of their key foundational components is spirituality. Again, AA has been wildly successful at helping people overcome addiction through spirituality. Atheists will scoff and bark at all of this, like wolves howling at the moon, but 'the proof is in the pudding' as they say.

 

[Boss]

...this requires organizing all people in groups over the internet to form a consensus

so this development cannot even take place until after the internet is created
and people agree to use it for this purpose.

I believe this is a daunting challenge. What we find are humans who wish to use the Internet as a tool to advance personal agendas. No one is interested in forming a consensus. In fact, most are on a mission that is the antithesis of consensus. None of the Atheists we are speaking to here have any notion of changing or altering their beliefs, or "coming together" for the betterment of mankind. They are on a mission to destroy human spirituality.

I applaud your efforts to find reason and areas of universal understanding. I very much agree with you and think you've made outstanding points here. But I think you misinterpret where these people are coming from and what they are doing. This is their Jihad. They have adopted a "religious faith" in an "Atheistic Science" and are willing to do whatever it takes to advance the agenda of destroying God, destroying human spirituality, and ushering in an era of Godlessness to all humanity. You and I will never deter that.

 

[Boss]

Antony Flew was a reknown Atheist for most of his life. He is probably best known to Atheists for his "No True Scotsman" argument. He is said to have concluded by the age of 15 that there was no God. This was not a man who was undecided or meek in his Atheistic beliefs, he was a devoutly Atheistic person who argued vociferously with theists on the concept of God. In 2004, he converted to theism because of "the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species."

Here is another such testimony from Philip Vander Elst.

"Growing up in a non-Christian family with intellectually gifted but unbelieving parents, I used to think that belief in God and the supernatural had been discredited by the advance of science, and was incompatible with liberty. Religious faith seemed to me to involve the blind worship of a cosmic dictator, and the abandonment of reason in favour of ‘revelation’. Why, in any case, should I take religion seriously, I thought, when the existence of evil and suffering clearly discredited the Christian claim that our world owed its existence to a benevolent Creator?"

Here are but two examples of people who believed as strongly as anyone on this forum that God was not real, did not exist, was a silly and foolish notion to believe in. Yet we see, they changed their minds. There are literally thousands of such examples, and this happens daily around the world. It's not because they are stupid or weak minded, it's not because some televangelist is beating them over the head with a Bible, and it's not because they've been brainwashed by religion. Quite simply, it's because they dared to open their minds and explore the possibilities objectively.

Too many of you are simply stuck in a rut. You've made up your minds and nothing can change it. But the mere fact that you spend such inordinate amounts of your personal time, here, debating against God, trying to convince people to believe as you do, that shows you are not fully content with your beliefs. It's not enough satisfaction for you to disbelieve, you need others to disbelieve with you. So you come here, day in and day out, to enter one post after another, garnering strength in support of each other like co-dependent enablers. And it frustrates you because even that is not enough, you have to be mean and vindictive as well, insult and denigrate, attempt to hurt people with your words.

This is where Moonbat usually pops in to interject the "pot and kettle" analogy, but my purpose here is to fight the decline of humanity. I don't need to justify my beliefs. I don't have anything to prove.

 

[BreezeWood]

It is perfectly obvious that you have absolutely no clue what energy is.

Do you know how the conservation of energy was initially concieved of and by whom?

How is thr energy of a physical object calculated?

You keep these words like you know wha they mean.

There are various ways energy is calculated, read eddy's "How energy is measured for dummies" to learn about those. Of course, his link didn't mention "dark energy" which actually comprises most of the energy in our universe.

Being able to measure energy doesn't prove it's not spiritual. I'm still waiting for that evidence to be submitted. So far, none of you have done that.

Not according to this

God is a spiritual form of energy, it can't be measured physically, if it could be, it wouldn't be spiritual in nature.

(it) can't be measured physically, if it could be, it wouldn't be spiritual in nature.


this has occurred previously to no avail ...

Boss provides no religion in support of his "spirituality", but a fundamentalists, scripuralist vision of supremacy for humanity at the exclusion of all other living beings that is antithetical and for the same reason for his "God" as others to not exist.

meditation in vein is a waste of time.

.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

More interesting, if disturbing question for me is "What was in the space before the current universe filled it?" It's hard to imagine nothing, then something, time/space from the big bang rushed in to fill that literal void. So sensibly (if notlogically) something had to pre-exist for the expanding universe to occupy. Was it a previous universe that got 'overwritten' like data on a harddrive? If so, can it happen again with our universe being 'big banged over' by another universe?

Sleep well, pleasant dreams.

It's thoughts like this that make me roll my eyes at the popularity of gay bashing threads. Ya, like any personal-level issue we have matters.

 

[Boss]

It's hard to imagine nothing, then something, time/space from the big bang rushed in to fill that literal void. So sensibly (if notlogically) something had to pre-exist for the expanding universe to occupy.

Huh? You're not making any sense. It's like you are saying a big dark empty universe existed, then this "big bang" happened to fill it full of stuff like a giant cosmic firework. So in your theory, time and space already existed and the "big bang" was simply when matter was dispersed. Seems to me, this completely contradicts cosmic inflation and Einstein's space-time continuum. This is the first I've heard of such a theory which is neither logical or sensical.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Any specific answer would have sufficed?

No, any specific answer will not suffice when there are several different answers as well as some unknowns. That's YOUR PROBLEM here... your little simple mind can't handle complex thought or abstracts. You assume there are answers when there may not be answers. This leads you to draw conclusions that haven't been made.

This has been an ongoing problem with humans for all our existence. When Newton devised his theory of color and light, Sir Robert Hooke of the Royal Academy of Sciience said, "What are you, some kind of a nut?" When Louie Pasteur discovered microbes could live inside the human body, the same academic elite said, "You must've been out in the sun too long, you're starting to crack up!" When Dr. Ignaz Semmelweiss discovered that it was a good idea to wash your hands between digging in cadavers and operating on live patients, they locked him up in the insane asylum and it wasn't until 40 years after his death, his discovery became the advent of medical hygiene. I could go on an on... From Galileo to Stephen Hawking, scientists have made controversial discoveries which took time for others to accept. Why? Because of the hubris and arrogance you are exemplifying here.

Don't flatter yourself in thinking you are in any way like Newton, Pasteur, and Semmelweiss. Before they even began to approach an original idea of their own device, they learned, practiced, and the long history of science and tradition within the scope of their field. And they could speak specifically and precisely about both that knowledge and the details of their own experience.

What they didn't do is rant on and on about some nebulous "immortal spiritual energy". it's the difference between brilliance and bullshit.

In his own words Einstein admitted his limited mind,and yet man puts so much faith in man. I think we can put all the greatest minds in the same category.

 

[Youwerecreated]

[MENTION=36773]Boss[/MENTION]

Confusious said, "Better to take only a single step in the right direction than to walk a mile in the wrong direction."

And, man, you've jumped on the crazy train in the wrong direction."

This is pure arrogance. In this universe of all the unknowns you speak so boldly.

Think about it !

 

[Youwerecreated]

Quite a few. For instance, "Newton saw a monotheistic God as the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation."

Isaac Newton's religious views - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

His life pursuit was illuminate the mind of God. He ended up giving us calculus, gravity, and a number of nice contributions to science. His greatest contribution was in moving scence from trying to explainm "why" and focusing on what and how.

I must be misreading or otherwise not getting your points.
I thought you said it was definitely proven "god does not exist."

I thought it was proven that we/humans "could not prove god exists or not."
this is not the same thing.

How does Newton's work prove that god does not exist?

Did you understand my point, [MENTION=35236]itfitzme[/MENTION]
if God means the forces of life behind the laws in the universe,
doesn't the work of Newton and scientists prove these laws are consistent
and the workings of energy, matter, force etc in the world
follow consistent patterns or naturally occurring laws

so why isn't that proof there are forces of life and laws that are universal?
how is this proving god does not exist if it seems to confirm there is a
consistent force of life in the world?

That's cuz you don't understand the of the scientific method and hypothesis testing.

And seem to have missed what I've said more than once. Failure to prove something doesn't exist is not proof that it might.

For Gods sake, how many times must I read because someone disagrees with you or people on your side say that they don't understand the scientific Method. Many theories you put faith in can't be tested according to the scientific method.

 

[Boss]

There are various ways energy is calculated, read eddy's "How energy is measured for dummies" to learn about those. Of course, his link didn't mention "dark energy" which actually comprises most of the energy in our universe.

Being able to measure energy doesn't prove it's not spiritual. I'm still waiting for that evidence to be submitted. So far, none of you have done that.

Not according to this

God is a spiritual form of energy, it can't be measured physically, if it could be, it wouldn't be spiritual in nature.

(it) can't be measured physically, if it could be, it wouldn't be spiritual in nature.

this has occurred previously to no avail ...

Boss provides no religion in support of his "spirituality", but a fundamentalists, scripuralist vision of supremacy for humanity at the exclusion of all other living beings that is antithetical and for the same reason for his "God" as others to not exist.

meditation in vein is a waste of time.

In light of eddy's theory that energy can't be created or destroyed (immortal), perhaps energy is God? If that is so, maybe I am wrong and God can be measured physically? Perhaps we've been doing it for years and just haven't realized it? Or maybe God has "duality" and can both exist physically and spiritually at the same time?

I am really just suggesting ideas, which is a far cry from what you are doing. Repeatedly, we see these mystic and cryptic posts from you talking about "Everlasting" but never revealing what kind of wacky religion you adhere to but rejecting any and all connotations of God that have been presented. Hinduist? Buhdist? We don't know, you never do say. For whatever reason, you don't want to disclose that information and seem to be content with popping in to bash anyone who dares to challenge an atheistic view.