opinion

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by ajwps
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...........

So let me get this straight... you don't believe in the Messiah that is prophesied about throught the Old Testament, but you do believe in the circularity that God created the universe and the universe then created God?

At least my beliefs are backed by logic.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by gop_jeff

So let me get this straight... you don't believe in the Messiah that is prophesied about throught the Old Testament, but you do believe in the circularity that God created the universe and the universe then created God?

Actually there is no Messiah prophecised in the Old Testament (Torah). Not one word. There is talk of a messenger or messiah mentioned in some of the books written by the prophets.

Also I don't believe you are anything more than what G-d made you and that something may be very different than what you sense with your touch, eyes, ears, smell or experience. To further confuse you, I believe that the Bible was given to mankind as a sort of metaphor with hidden meanings which are so complex that describing man's reality is not obvious in the literal interpretations you find so comforting. I believe that there are only three realities in this timeless dimension (not universe) and they are G-d, His Bible and your 'Free Will.' Everything else exists only as you assume it exists with your senses.

I do not claim to understand G-d's thoughts or wisdom or any of His attributes but your seem to find them real to you because you can read them in the King's English. Thats comforting alright.

At least my beliefs are backed by logic.


So did the eleventh century men of science have their beliefs backed up by their logic. Does that make you feel better?

 

['ol Perfessor]

Let's see how far we can split this hair......and have it still be a hair.
My contention again is that GOD never changes. GOD is. What changes is the entity known as man's ability to define and understand HIM.
(GOD has gone from the biggest rock, to thunder, to a bear, to animal's heads with human bodies, to El Shaddai{He of the mountain. What does your diety look like? He is invisible; Where does your diety live? He lives on the mountain. Where is the mountain? It is everywhere! That's a leap for you!} To the epitome of forgiveness; for to live is to sin. All life exists from other life. to what? What is the next leap of knowledge, understanding of God?)
Through all those above iterations has GOD changed?
It is not the religion of Evolution. It is not the paternity of the "State" like in Europe and the failed USSR. It is not the pronouncements of men. Especially if it is exclusive in any way.
Time is to spacetime as man is to wo man. somehow related but totally different.
Spacetime is all there already, like the universe, like photons, like all subatomic entities coelescing as observed, a wave everywhere otherwise. See Bell's Theorem, Schrodinger's cat.
Circular reasoning is using a word in its definition. I did not.
When various individuals of differing worldview restate my abrupt and needy thesis they translate my worldview to theirs......... the lateral thinking 'ol Perfessor

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by 'ol Perfessor

Let's see how far we can split this hair......and have it still be a hair. My contention again is that GOD never changes. GOD is. What changes is the entity known as man's ability to define and understand HIM.

I believe you are correct in that G-d never changes and exists (attribute unknown) in a timelessness (hard to comprehend). Man always tries to define G-d, weigh him, measure him, give him eyes, ears, nose, hands and everything with which we humans are familiar in words that are really metaphors for something that cannot be understood by humans. I love to see those who give literal interprertation to English words that were never meant to be literal.

(GOD has gone from the biggest rock, to thunder, to a bear, to animal's heads with human bodies, to El Shaddai{He of the mountain. What does your diety look like? He is invisible; Where does your diety live? He lives on the mountain. Where is the mountain? It is everywhere! That's a leap for you!} To the epitome of forgiveness; for to live is to sin. All life exists from other life. to what? What is the next leap of knowledge, understanding of God?)

WHAT???? You are a perfect example of those who I just described. You speak in concrete literal understandings of the English words that you interpret in your human brain. Do you know the meaning of metaphor?

Through all those above iterations has GOD changed?
It is not the religion of Evolution. It is not the paternity of the "State" like in Europe and the failed USSR. It is not the pronouncements of men. Especially if it is exclusive in any way.
Time is to spacetime as man is to wo man. somehow related but totally different.

WHAT???? Now your words make no sense whatsoever.

Spacetime is all there already, like the universe, like photons, like all subatomic entities coelescing as observed, a wave everywhere otherwise. See Bell's Theorem, Schrodinger's cat.
Circular reasoning is using a word in its definition. I did not.
When various individuals of differing worldview restate my abrupt and needy thesis they translate my worldview to theirs......... the lateral thinking 'ol Perfessor

Whatever you said?????? Your ideations and thoughts are way out there somewhere but where????

 

[rtwngAvngr]

This discussion was a bunch of illogical retarded crap. And i mean that in the best way!

 

[Yurt]

:cof:

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr

This discussion was a bunch of illogical retarded crap. And i mean that in the best way!

Brother you said a mouthful.....

 

['ol Perfessor]

"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. "

One of the major points that has to be considered to understand any of my arguments is that our world does not exist lest we observe it.
The cornerstone of Quantum theory which is about to replace Relativity as the guiding principle of physics,( although like Newtonian laws it still works ,[ consider Newton to be a poltheistic worldview comparatively]
Then the speed of light is seen to have changed, (see new scientist.com), Einstien then gets shaky, General Relativity theory and practice is comparable to the realization that there can be only one God but that we are deed ajudged, historically speaking.
The progression of science,( which cannot be in conflict with religion), now leans to Quantum fact.......and that is that sub atomic particles are waves,(everywhere), and particles at the same time,(local).
Further Bell's Theorem tells us unequivocally that all matter is connected to all other matter at the fundamental level.
Or.........buddy there aint nothing solid about it.........
Therefore to be correct rephrase your sentence;
'appears to me,( yadayadayada), or you wouldn't sense your own reality'
should be "wouldn't sense the Reality".
Which for want of any better understanding let's capitalize it and the Reality is another facet of the Deity.
Are you following me? Well don't follow me, I'll have you arrested



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

No, you have entered the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries

"This discussion was a bunch of illogical retarded crap. And i mean that in the best way!"

Thank You

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by 'ol Perfessor

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."

One of the major points that has to be considered to understand any of my arguments is that our world does not exist lest we observe it.

Have you ever seen an elephant disappear on a Las Vegas stage or a woman cut in half? You can observe these effects and believe that these tricks really occur because you observed it with your senses. Do you think that you exist in a universe where only those things that you sense are real like apples falling to the ground or light photons traveling so fast that they do not exist in our time?

The cornerstone of Quantum theory which is about to replace Relativity as the guiding principle of physics,( although like Newtonian laws it still works ,[ consider Newton to be a poltheistic worldview comparatively]

Your again confusing Quantum Theory or Physics which has already replaced our macro world with a subatomic level of an uncertainty principle. What has QM to do with Polytheism (the belief in multiple gods)? What are you trying to say?

Then the speed of light is seen to have changed, (see new scientist.com), Einstien then gets shaky, General Relativity theory and practice is comparable to the realization that there can be only one God but that we are deed ajudged, historically speaking.

I am having trouble with your garbled thought pattern in this statement. Something about the speed of light has now changed proving that a shaky Einsten's theory of general relativity is comparable to proving a one god theory (historically speaking) ???? You are just going to have to be more coherent in your thought pattern for anybody to understand what you are talking about.

The progression of science,( which cannot be in conflict with religion), now leans to Quantum fact.......and that is that sub atomic particles are waves,(everywhere), and particles at the same time,(local). Further Bell's Theorem tells us unequivocally that all matter is connected to all other matter at the fundamental level. Or.........buddy there aint nothing solid about it.........

Can your senses tell you unequivocally that all matter is connected to all other matter (particles) everywhere which is in conflict with your reilgious faith in what you see and feel? I think these facts are a little difficult for you to understand or that these facts are only what science understands to be in our current era but that all this can change in 100 years when science will know things that will conflict with these seemingly apparent facts?

Therefore to be correct rephrase your sentence; 'appears to me,( yadayadayada), or you wouldn't sense your own reality' should be "wouldn't sense the Reality".

What makes you or I think that G-d would let us in on His wisdom of creaton because scientists NOW think that this is REALITY? yaadahyaadahyaadah?????

Which for want of any better understanding let's capitalize it and the Reality is another facet of the Deity.

Please present proof of your theory that your REALITY is another facet of G-d?

Are you following me? Well don't follow me, I'll have you arrested

Now, now don't get rude. I have been kind enough to respond to your ramblings without simply telling you that you haven't the vaguest idea of what you are talking about.....

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

I don't think you were ever out of your own mental dimension of something or other?

No, you have entered the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. "This discussion was a bunch of illogical retarded crap. And i mean that in the best way!" Thank You

You said it brother?

 

[Man of 1951]

first off, i think the quote you were refering to was:
If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.
Voltaire (1694-1778)

anyways....

I present to you the Cosmological Proof:

“Things are in motion, hence there is a first mover,
Things are caused, hence there is a first cause,
Things exist, hence there is a creator.”

I don't understand when u said that means 80% is in the future.....how do you know that?

Remember people:
"Life is a mystery to be lived, not a problem to be solved."
-Van Kaam

 

[Annie]

How about giving Aquinas credit?

http://members.aol.com/Philosdog/Aquinas.html

"Things are in motion, hence there is a first mover.
Things are caused, hence there is a first cause.
Things exist, hence there is a creator.
Perfect goodness exists, hence it has a source.
Things are designed, hence they serve a purpose."

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by Man of 1951

first off, i think the quote you were refering to was:
If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.
Voltaire (1694-1778)

Interesting....


anyways.... I present to you the Cosmological Proof:

“Things are in motion, hence there is a first mover,
Things are caused, hence there is a first cause,
Things exist, hence there is a creator.”

I think that what your cosmological proof is referring to is the term 'irreducible complexity.' This refers to the fact that in the stastically impossible number of events that must have necessarily occurred, one following another for this cosmos to be, that if only one out of those trillions to the zilliointh power times infinity were defective, the entire complex formation of this universe would have failed.

In other words, without a Creator the universe is a statiscal impossibility. Many scientist do not admit that there is an unseen hand in all this so they hypothesize that there has always been an infinity of universes and this particular one we live in just happens to have everything working just fine for life and things.

I don't understand when u said that means 80% is in the future.....how do you know that?

Neither does the ol professor understand what he means.

Remember people:

"Life is a mystery to be lived, not a problem to be solved."
-Van Kaam

I see this quote a little differently. Life is a mystery and the Creator gave man the intellect to continually attempt to solve this unsolvable mystery.

People like you and I, though mortal of course like everyone else, do not grow old no matter how long we live...[We] never cease to stand like curious children before the great mystery into which we were born.

--Albert Einstein in a letter to Otto Juliusburger

 

[Man of 1951]

My bad:

“Things are in motion, hence there is a first mover,
Things are caused, hence there is a first cause,
Things exist, hence there is a creator.” - St. Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274)

There is a paragraph i have read that pretty much defines my "religiousity" and i find it very interesting and I'll share it:

"The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of true art and true science. Whoever does not know it and can no longer wonder, no longer marvel, is as good as dead, and his eyes are dimmed. It was the experience of mystery -- even if mixed with fear -- that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, our perceptions of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which only in their most primitive forms are accessible to our minds: it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute true religiosity. In this sense, and only this sense, I am a deeply religious man... I am satisfied with the mystery of life's eternity and with a knowledge, a sense, of the marvelous structure of existence -- as well as the humble attempt to understand even a tiny portion of the Reason that manifests itself in nature."

this was said by the one and only Albert Einstein in his essay "The World as I See it."
tell me what you think

I see this quote a little differently. Life is a mystery and the Creator gave man the intellect to continually attempt to solve this unsolvable mystery.

I see what you're saying ajwps, but i guess i believe that its great to ponder these things, but to also understand that there is no wrong answer, because theres no hardcore facts to back anything up and there never will be until God (if it exists) reveals itself. but all is well
Has anyone read about Buddhism (and i assume Hinduism because of so many similarities, but i dont know), i find their description of God being an essence and not the way others regard God (as a He or as a being). anyways, what do you all think?

 

['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

ie GOD does not change. Our capacity to understand HIM does.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by Man of 1951

My bad: “Things are in motion, hence there is a first mover,
Things are caused, hence there is a first cause,
Things exist, hence there is a creator.” - St. Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274)

There is a paragraph i have read that pretty much defines my "religiousity" and i find it very interesting and I'll share it: "The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of true art and true science. Whoever does not know it and can no longer wonder, no longer marvel, is as good as dead, and his eyes are dimmed. It was the experience of mystery -- even if mixed with fear -- that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, our perceptions of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which only in their most primitive forms are accessible to our minds: it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute true religiosity. In this sense, and only this sense, I am a deeply religious man... I am satisfied with the mystery of life's eternity and with a knowledge, a sense, of the marvelous structure of existence -- as well as the humble attempt to understand even a tiny portion of the Reason that manifests itself in nature." this was said by the one and only Albert Einstein in his essay "The World as I See it."
tell me what you think.

Actually Einstein was not a religious man during most of his lifetime. He mainly used the word 'religiosity' but he understood from his ability to see science from 'outside the box' that there had to be a 'watchmaker.' There was no other explanation possible even with the multi-universe theory or that the universe had always been present theory.

I see what you're saying ajwps, but i guess i believe that its great to ponder these things, but to also understand that there is no wrong answer, because theres no hardcore facts to back anything up and there never will be until God (if it exists) reveals itself. but all is well. Has anyone read about Buddhism (and i assume Hinduism because of so many similarities, but i dont know), i find their description of God being an essence and not the way others regard God (as a He or as a being). anyways, what do you all think?

Actually the definition of a 'being' or a 'HE' is also an 'ESSENCE.' There is no way to assign any attributes to such an essence or being. Human intellect is in reality finite and there is obviously no way to understand something that it outside the ability to understand for in fact what you are talking about is in the realm of the 'metaphysical' and cannot be proved or demonstrated in the context of our senses or mental capabilities.

 

[ajwps]

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. ie GOD does not change. Our capacity to understand HIM does.

Personally I don't think man invented G-d but that G-d waited for man to discover that He exists. Then G-d chose to reveal His existence to the man who first realized He was everywhere. Then came monotheism.

 

['ol Perfessor]

invention is the act of generating an idea for a new product or a new method for making an old product.
lms.thomsonelearning.com/hbcp/glossary/glossary.taf

The process of reshaping existing cultural items into a new form.
www.sociologyessentials-2nded.nelson.com/glossary3.html

From the Latin invenire,to come upon
www.ichrusa.com/saintsalive/glossary.htm

We Agree, I like That; the 'ol perfessor

 

[Man of 1951]

Actually Einstein was not a religious man during most of his lifetime. He mainly used the word 'religiosity' but he understood from his ability to see science from 'outside the box' that there had to be a 'watchmaker.' There was no other explanation possible even with the multi-universe theory or that the universe had always been present theory.

I see what you're saying, but i put that not to describe Einstein's 'religiosity' but mine. But with the theory that the universe had always been present (infinite universe) i find that it is possible, because we know that space and time are together, so in reality there is no watchmaker, the concept of time is as unknown as that of space. No doubt there are problems with the infinite universe theory (eg. Olber's Paradox) but i think it is possible without the watchmaker idea.

Actually the definition of a 'being' or a 'HE' is also an 'ESSENCE.' There is no way to assign any attributes to such an essence or being. Human intellect is in reality finite and there is obviously no way to understand something that it outside the ability to understand for in fact what you are talking about is in the realm of the 'metaphysical' and cannot be proved or demonstrated in the context of our senses or mental capabilities.

I guess i just find it hard to believe that in certain religions that refer to God as a He believe it was an essence that appeared to and spoke to Moses and the other prophets. I find Buddhism to be humble and more philosophical rather than religous which seems to be appealing to me.

 

[musicman]

I'm sorry, but none of this proves that Wile E. Coyote was the Antichrist.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by Man of 1951

I see what you're saying, but i put that not to describe Einstein's 'religiosity' but mine. But with the theory that the universe had always been present (infinite universe) i find that it is possible, because we know that space and time are together, so in reality there is no watchmaker, the concept of time is as unknown as that of space. No doubt there are problems with the infinite universe theory (eg. Olber's Paradox) but i think it is possible without the watchmaker idea.

Do you have any idea of what our 'universe' would be like right now had there been an infintely present cosmos? Do you know how long forever is even with time and space being together.

With scientist's understanding today, an infinite universe would long ago have collapsed into nothingness or expanded to a large void with no mass, energy, time or us.

If just one of the laws of physics were to change only an infintesimal amount (without a watchmaker keeping everything in order) this universe we live in would no longer exist. In your opinion, what do you think keeps the laws fixed and maintaining the universe in a constant state instead of your chaos concept with no watchmaker?

Is there a constant that keeps things working or is there simply haphazard events that seem to stay in perfect alignment and order?

I guess i just find it hard to believe that in certain religions that refer to God as a He believe it was an essence that appeared to and spoke to Moses and the other prophets. I find Buddhism to be humble and more philosophical rather than religous which seems to be appealing to me.

Good for you but I can give you an alternative theory that explains much more than a philosophical or religious perspective that clears up so many things that are now considered unexplainable by the scientific community.

Example: What is on the other side of our universe and what does the border of the universe look like?