Is there a GOD?

[2020hindsight]

1. What folks are saying 2020 (I think) is that they want a diversity of views, rather than wading through a great bulk of one persons view

2. ...your definition of pantheism is very narrow. It is actually a broad church and encompasses such religious systems as hinduism and shintoism (I believe), as well as the non theistic version.

3. Also, attaching great names to the school of thought does nothing to add credibility.

4. Einstein for instance has had his whole body of work shot to pieces by later scientists...

5. and who know if they are even right? All that does is engender people to follow others thought, instead of some original thinking of their own.

6. A lot of people now call themselves atheists based on smart guy Dawkin's writings. Followers? What makes them different to the "faithful"?

7. Diverse views spark genuine thinking and lead people to find their own truth... and grant then that ferchrissake instead of trying to "sell" them on Dawkinsite atheism.

8. He is just a searcher like all of us. His truth might not be the truth. I for one think he's an outright tosser, no better than Hovind.

1. I think you'll find you misquote roland there, in that he complained I hadn't given my opinion.

2. ...ok - I made it clear that the title was not the important thing, but if you prefer I'll call myself a "naturalistic paganist", (one of the alias's given), who happens to believe all that stuff written on World Pantheism.

3. "attaching great names to the school of thought does nothing to add credibility." tough call - I think you'll find that less than 5% agree with you (who is more credible that Sagan pray tell)

4. "Einstein for instance has had his whole body of work shot to pieces by later scientists... " maybe I can agree with your point 4 , but this point 3 just isn't true - certainly not "his whole body etc". His relativity holds up to any criticism as far as I know. Just that he couldn't sort out the microstuff - nor a unified equation. And he was wrong about quantum mechanics, when he said "god doesn't roll dice for instance".
The sort of stuff discussed here (not that I've read or understand it all)
http://www.thebigview.com/spacetime/uncertainty.html

Heck we are talking about arguments which are not likely to affect this argument about God. - pure conjecture as it is.

I repeat (for emphasis and to avoid this becoming an argument of who knows more physics that the other, or who guesses the correct person to quote) "we are talking about arguments which are not likely to affect this argument".

But just playing around there with that topic ..

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Theory : more precisely the position of a particle is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known in this instant, and vice versa

Douglas Adams (funny dude - youtube back there somewhere) says that the answer is "42" - then explains "now to work out the question". - And he adds " Quantum Mechanics states that you can't know both the question and the answer.

Heisenberg on Schrodinger's Wave Theory: "What Schrödinger writes about the visualisability of his theory [...] is crap."

I'm sure Schrodinger is equally complimentary in his comments on Heisenberg.

5. "and who know if they are even right? All that does is engender people to follow others thought, instead of some original thinking of their own." I disagree - sorry Wayne, but I am more likely to be influenced by Sagan than I am by you.

6. "What makes them different to the "faithful"? ok They are "thinking discerning faithful." If the others are also "thinking discerning faithful" , then no probs. (eg Archbishop of Canterbury as you posted once - a youtube in conversation with Dawkins you'll recall - indeed where you complimented Dawkins I believe) . - just as long as they
a) agree that they are going beyond what can be proven, or alternatively
b) offering that proof for review.

7. I would say that Dawkins hasn't even been read by most before they cross him off as atheist extremist. Sure he has expressed it pretty forcefully in the God Delusion - probably offended the 1.5% of people who believe the old testament - but he's right on every (important) thing he says as far as I can see. There's a thread out there where noone can fault him on anything major (yet) - Although recently I think I posted something on that thread where I disagreed with him.

8. "He is just a searcher like all of us. His truth might not be the truth. I for one think he's an outright tosser, no better than Hovind." Here we go with the personal insults again . I suggest that if there was a science competition between him on the one hand - and you , me, Hovind, and everyone else on this chatroom put together on the other - and we dicussed anything about evolution or the science behind religion - then I know where my money would be. Tell you what , I'd be going short on our team lol.

In conclusion here's the typical stuff that Einstein and Heisenberg argued about.
Now I may be wrong, but I don't think that it is gonna affect any of us here - nor what we believe about whiether we want to take a large or a small leap of faith on the question of an imagined god

 

[Julia]

And then there's Benny Hinn, a true servant of The Lord, I guess.
Here's an extract from today's 'Sunday Mail'.

"Prosperous pastor Benny Hinn flew into Brisbane a multimillionnaire. He left, 28 hours and three shows later, an estimated $800,000 richer.

The Queensland capital was a goldmine for the flamboyant televangelist who left with cash, cheques and the bank account and credit card details of more than 50,000 Australian fans. Some attendees, who travelled from as far away as Hong Kong and Perth, handed over gold earrings and wedding rings instead of cash.

......

He travelled aboard his $36 million Gulfstream jet to Auckland, part of a 27 stop world tour expected to generate more than $10 million.
The 105,000 Australians who attended Pastor Hinn's shows in 1998 were believed to have donated more than $1 million. Brisbane attendees at his February 15 and 16 shows were urged to give as much as $10,000 each. Conservative estimates place the Australian donations, minus merchandise sales, at $800,000.

Pastor Hinn says he is accountable to God and authorities which oversee not-for-profit organisations.

........."

Pretty sad when people are so desperate they can be taken in by charlatans like this.

 

[2020hindsight]

The Queensland capital was a goldmine for the flamboyant televangelist who left with cash, cheques and the bank account and credit card details of more than 50,000 Australian fans. ...

He travelled aboard his $36 million Gulfstream jet to Auckland, part of a 27 stop world tour expected to generate more than $10 million.

....Pastor Hinn says he is accountable to God and authorities which oversee not-for-profit organisations"

Pretty sad when people are so desperate they can be taken in by charlatans like this.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=221846&highlight=televangelists#post221846

no shiny-suited bouffant-haired televangelists fleecing gullible people

yep Dawkins nailed it again

Ps If he is accountable to God, I wonder who audits the accounts?

 

[2020hindsight]

Roland -
You needn't respond to the homework you set me back there lol ( repeating what had already been posted)
(although it would be courteous)

But , hey, stretch your mind to try to visualise this one ..

there are 10^21 stars out there (according to NASA)
- that means that for a full moon - about the size of your little fingernail at arms length -
that behind that small moon / fingernail there are
15 thousand million million (15E15) stars !

And each of them has many planets say 6 times that again. (all these numbers very rough)
and that just behind one little fingernail. !

and we have the gall to suggest that Earth is somehow the only one that "God is interested in"

15,000,000,000,000,000 stars !
maybe
90,000,000,000,000,000 planets !

just behind the full moon. !

btw, is that 90 pentillion?

 

[2020hindsight]

Another way to think about this (sheesh)

Let's say a human hair is 0.1mm diameter
hold it at arm's length (say 600mm) -
look at the end of the hair ( area = 0.0078mm^2)

Then if there are 1E21 stars in a sphere (assuming equally distributed - exceedingly approx)

Then the area of said sphere is (4 x 3.142 x 600^2) = 4.52 million mm^2

Then (on average) behind that single hair

there are (1E21 / 4,520,000 * 0.0078) =

1,700,000,000,000 stars !
maybe
10,000,000,000,000 planets !
(10 quadrillion planets)

just behind that single strand of hair !

the mind boggles. (E&OE )

PS for all you people who complain, I contend that this is on topic.

 

[wayneL]

3. "attaching great names to the school of thought does nothing to add credibility." tough call - I think you'll find that less than 5% agree with you (who is more credible that Sagan pray tell)

This is the only point worthy of address amongst the irrelevant waffle/\

I'm happy to be in a 5% minority, because 95% of people are followers. This is why religious systems started in the first place, Christainity, Islam, Buddhism.... Atheism. Sagan, though obviously intelligent and eloquent, is still subject to emotional and cognitive biases which guides all of our decision making.

The only truly intelligent position is agnosticism, as the agnostic is open to further discussion. Outright Atheism, ah la Dawkins, is emotionally based. We see that very clearly with his emotional outbursts and disingenuous and faulty logic at times. We see that with you too and your overzealous and irrelevant (by continuously focusing on new earth creationism) posting on the matter, a case of "He doth protest too much".

It's like you're trying to prove it to yourself.

 

[2020hindsight]

This is the only point worthy of address amongst the irrelevant waffle/\

I'm happy to be in a 5% minority, because 95% of people are followers. This is why religious systems started in the first place, Christainity, Islam, Buddhism.... Atheism. Sagan, though obviously intelligent and eloquent, is still subject to emotional and cognitive biases which guides all of our decision making.

The only truly intelligent position is agnosticism, as the agnostic is open to further discussion. Outright Atheism, ah la Dawkins, is emotionally based. We see that very clearly with his emotional outbursts and disingenuous and faulty logic at times. We see that with you too and your overzealous and irrelevant (by continuously focusing on new earth creationism) posting on the matter, a case of "He doth protest too much".

It's like you're trying to prove it to yourself.

Wayne you have yet to fault Dawkins

You dismiss Sagan out of hand (yet elsewhere you praise him)

you are all over the place like a dog's breakfast

and if you don't mind - please give me some examples of the faulty logic of my arguments

 

[wayneL]

Wayne you have yet to fault Dawkins

You dismiss Sagan out of hand (yet elsewhere you praise him)

you are all over the place like a dog's breakfast

and if you don't mind - please give me some examples of the faulty logic of my arguments

/\This very post is faulty logic, as it is inaccurate. Also in the monumental straw man argument that young earth creationism is somehow relevant to the current discussion. A straw man argument is a logical fallacy, therefore faulty.

Baboom.

 

[Julia]

Wayne you have yet to fault Dawkins

Oh, for heaven's sake, 2020, in just his previous post, Wayne clearly stated the objection he has to Dawkins. And that's not to mention perfectly clearly outlined objections in previous posts.

 

[imaginator]

Yes there is a God, and he is alive in you as your Higher Self. I'm not a Christian, but a Buddhist who studied Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, Taoism and Buddhism.

William Blake said "God is man awake(enlightened about his true nature), Man is God asleep(the eastern concept of ignorance of one's true nature)".

The bible is an analogy. Adam the generic man fell asleep in Eden (the land of eternity) and he dreams. That is the fall of man from being Gods and turned into man (5 senses man). So man as Adam dreams the dreams of life (refer The Matrix & Truman Show).

We are all our own god in our life. Whatever we believe we can achieve, we achieve. Whatever we say we can't achieve, we can't. Also comes the power of our mind to manifest things (see "The Secret") which furthers proves that man has within him the creative spark of God, the power of his own thoughts.

God is not a person. You are part of god, and he is in you learning and experiencing your life experiences. One day you may look at your life and be aware that whatever experience you had, you attracted it with your creative power of your own thoughts, and actions. One day in our search for God we will realise that God is actually the nearer than near, He is Us. In within us. Our true nature of pure potentiality. In the scripture, God told Moses, "my name is "I AM". Who says I am? You. Me. Everyone.

Circumstances are the creatures of man. Man is not the creature of circumstances.

 

[Wysiwyg]

The bible is an analogy. Adam the generic man fell asleep in Eden (the land of eternity) and he dreams. That is the fall of man from being Gods and turned into man (5 senses man). So man as Adam dreams the dreams of life

Hi, found your thoughts interesting but when reading this paragraph I thought immediately of the old and powerful saying from one of those Eastern religions :-

No dreams, only dreaming.

However this :-

One day you may look at your life and be aware that whatever experience you had, you attracted it with your creative power of your own thoughts, and actions.

I have heard and read this "you attract experiences" many times and cannot align any experiences that i have attracted.I think it`s an unfounded and unproved teaching.

 

[2020hindsight]

/\This very post is faulty logic, as it is inaccurate. Also in the monumental straw man argument that young earth creationism is somehow relevant to the current discussion. A straw man argument is a logical fallacy, therefore faulty.

Baboom.

lemme see
I think you are saying you dont respect Sagan yes?

 

[imaginator]

Hi, found your thoughts interesting but when reading this paragraph I thought immediately of the old and powerful saying from one of those Eastern religions :-

No dreams, only dreaming.

However this :-


I have heard and read this "you attract experiences" many times and cannot align any experiences that i have attracted.I think it`s an unfounded and unproved teaching.

Hi
Well probably you have not been paying much attention to your thoughts, or have not experiemented with creating/attracting something into your life after you start to think about it consistently and believe you are going to get it. (refer "THink and Grow Rich" by Napoleon Hill, or "The Secret" or "Power of Your Subconscious Mind" by Joseph Murphy) You can buy these books from amazon.com. You should try it, because it is something you will not believe if you have not noticed it yourself or done it deliberately before. I only believe it after I keep on experimenting with it for about 10 years. The first few times you succeed in this experiment, you will jump with joy (and try to tell everyone it's amazing and it's true and how they should watch "the Secret" dvd or read Think and Grow Rich etc).

On a lighter side, Have you ever suddenly thought about someone and meeting them in the most unexpected place/time or get an unexpected phone call from them? Have you ever thought about something and wanting to tell it to a friend, and only have your friend suggest the same thing to you, but without you actually telling them?

This world/life we live in has a dreamlike quality from the perspective of our Higher Self(god) who is dreaming it. Hence, the creative powers of your thoughts to create/attract/manifest.

 

[Wysiwyg]

Thanks imaginator, I respect your belief.

A while back i came to an understanding that my thoughts were just a life time accumulation of other peoples thoughts ... rearranged.

I`m off, take care.

 

[imaginator]

Also, I forgot to mention that God should be a god of experience, instead of a god of hearsay, theory, teaching or ritual. God is the existence of the universe and you, the very core of existence itself, therefore to know God is to be able to experience god. We experience God by being the god of our own life and creator of our own circumstances.

When we start to think good, feel good, and do good, our life changes into good. That is "Sow and ye shall reap" in Christianity or karma taught in Hinduism and Buddhism. Karma is in effect teaching us, you create what you give out, because you are a creator of your own experience.

 

[wayneL]

lemme see
I think you are saying you dont respect Sagan yes?

2020,

You seem to have trouble with English comprehension.

Would please quote my most recent comment re Sagan, and analyze the same. In your own words, explain how you came to this conclusion.

 

[2020hindsight]

2020, You seem to have trouble with English comprehension.

Would please quote my most recent comment re Sagan, and analyze the same. In your own words, explain how you came to this conclusion.

yes , but you say he is emotive ( and me - thanks for the compliment of putting me in the came category).

and then you say you are prepared to ignore him when it comes to your own "philosophy". (and that we should (DYOR). I would consider listening to him excellent research.

If we are talking about the philosophy that Hamlet refers to in the line "there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in your philosophy Horatio",

then it's all very well for some of us to guess at a god - just so long as we accept (until proven otherwise) that this god exists in our minds , and only in our minds.

And for me, if I listen to those elegant and fantastically inspiring docos of "Cosmos" - (or Attenborough for that matter) - touching as they do on so many aspects of God / Nature / whatever - and consistent with my experiences thus far whether in life or in the microscopic bit of scientific study I've had compared to him / them

and if I hear Sagan even as he was dying of cancer still constant with his theme that the Heavens are real, but Heaven is clearly a fairly ridiculous optimistic guess

then not only do I happily believe what he says
but I would be a foolish hypocrite to believe something else that was significantly inconsistent with what he says (that's just my opinion).

And that goes for Sir David Attenborough
and others.

(PS At the risk of getting you off track with strawman etc - you are the only one mentioning creationism here at least for the last 10 posts approx btw - converserley Hovind can easily be shown to be an idiot).

 

[wayneL]

Don't fob the question 2020, answer it.

 

[2020hindsight]

PS YOu say I make a strawman argument
and constantly refer to creationism.

Here's proff that you are indeed doing this.

In post #849 I reply to Roland request to outline what I think on the matter. Part from one comment that I dislike Hovind (in a fairly long post I thnik you'll agree) - I don;t mention creationism ( on a quick re-read of same.

HAVING SAID THAT.
I don;t see how you can say that the bible and t's versions of creation are irrelevant to a discussion of God - WHETHER OR NOT I mentioned them in the last 20 posts. Surely Bibles and religions and gods are linked -! somewhere - some would say almost synonyms !

Don't fob the question 2020, answer it.

Since I don;t know the question , (apart from the miriad answers that I've given - and by the way the fact that you ignore 7 of the 8 points I detailed back there on your post (which because you are a mod I am not permitted to say "please answer mine" - maybe if I add "sir" might help ?

I'll just say

42 lol

 

[wayneL]

PS YOu say I make a strawman argument
and constantly refer to creationism.

Here's proff that you are indeed doing this.

In post #849 I reply to Roland request to outline what I think on the matter. Part from one comment that I dislike Hovind (in a fairly long post I thnik you'll agree) - I don;t mention creationism ( on a quick re-read of same.

HAVING SAID THAT.
I don;t see how you can say that the bible and t's versions of creation are irrelevant to a discussion of God - WHETHER OR NOT I mentioned them in the last 20 posts. Surely Bibles and religions and gods are linked -! somewhere - some would say almost synonyms !



Since I don;t know the question , (apart from the miriad answers that I've given - and by the way the fact that you ignore 7 of the 8 points I detailed back there on your post (which because you are a mod I am not permitted to say "please answer mine" - maybe if I add "sir" might help ?

I'll just say

42 lol

You're wriggling 2020, evasion via verbosity. Let's hear an answer.