Is there a GOD?

[spooly74]

Well, just like you can program your phone to beep for specific reasons, DNA instructs the cell. DNA is a three-billion-lettered program telling the cell to act in a certain way. It is a full instruction manual.14

This is not quite true. DNA does not instruct the cell. DNA only stores the information, but it's the proteins that are the functional product of that information.The genetic code translates DNA information into protein products.

DNA needs proteins and proteins need DNA. This has been called irreducibly complex, but that does not mean it did not or could not evolve.

You cannot find instruction, precise information like this, without someone intentionally constructing it.

Simulations have shown how a simple code can evolve into the genetic code we see today throuh a series of gradual steps.

 

[Gillie]

The fact that scientists exist and actually question the validity of a god(s) and the universe, would in fact prove that there is actually no god(s).

 

[MS+Tradesim]

Hi $20Shoes,

Some good stuff there. I went back and reread your posts a few pages back to get a better grasp of where you're coming from and you should certainly be commended for putting a lot of thought into it all. There are some considerations that arise from your view but I wouldn't want to quibble over them because I do get where you're coming from. Possibly, the biggest hurdle I would see in your position per (i) is the question of the enduring self ie. we experience motion through space and we have a similar experience of motion through time. How would we account for this perception that the "I" endures and experiences the passage of time if no motion through time actually transpires? Are you thinking that the "I" exists in all areas of time but is only aware of experiencing the present? I'm not entirely sure what your view is there. Perhaps you might suggest that the experience of traversing time is actually only the stretching of time itself ie. if time were not expanding we would not be experiencing 'the passing of time'. If that's the case, I would have some objections there.

With respect to the linearity of time and other lines of time outside of the line our universe is bound to, I don't think there is any a priori reason to immediately reject the existence of multiple time lines related to multiple dimensions. If I understand you correctly, then we would roughly agree on that. One point where I would part company and I touched on in my last post, is that an infinite time series or even multiple infinite time series (assuming their intelligibility) does not obviate the contingency of our timeline.

Let's assume for the sake of discussion that our time is infinite and has the kind of elasticity you propose. The timeline would still be relative to the universe, or the space-time relations. Einstein showed us that at least. If time has the potential to change with respect to its properties then trivially, it could be other than what it is. But whatever has potential with respect to its properties can only experience the instantiation of potential through the existence of a necessary and sufficient prior state of affairs, in which the potential can be realised ie. in some way, time is therefore contingent. So for me, even if I ceded the infinity of time, I would still come face to face with the question of what is sufficient to ground the existence of time in the first place? Stretching it to infinity, IMO, only infinitely increases the need for a sufficient ground (I don't feel this is what you are saying and I need to reread some more). So from your post #1077 I would suggest that your hypothesis is not mutually exclusive of God (however so conceived).

Going on to discussion number (ii) there a number of ways this is considered and I'm sure you're aware of them. One is that time began with the universe. On this construal, from a theistic perspective, God's decree to create is simultaneous with the action of creation which includes time (hopefully it's obvious that by 'creation' I am not referring to a young earth creationist kind of idea). So it would simply be unintelligible to speak of 'before time'. Another view would draw from the multiple arrows of time idea that there is some kind of absolute non-potentialised time which is natural to God and the beginning of our time could be marked as a point on God's timeline. This would be complementary to your hypothesis in some way.

Just some loose thoughts. I like the way you think.

 

[Cartman]

The fact that scientists exist and actually question the validity of a god(s) and the universe, would in fact prove that there is actually no god(s).

geez Gillie -- that logic is about as about as straight as my old divining rod


any scientist that studies his craft with a pre-(mis)conception that god either does or doesnt exist will in the long term be displaying biased and unreliable scientific data to base future hypotheses from ----

if there is no god/s (i prefer "superior life form" as a description) then the complexity of living organisms is not diminished --- to the contrary --- it becomes even more amazing from a random point of view

if there is/are SLF (superior life form) --- rest assured they have knowledge of micro-biology and physics that make Sir Isaac Newton and his mates look like kindergarten students --- and the rest of us "uneducated souls" look like imbeciles :freak3:

i already admit to being an intellectual imbecile --- the truth tends to get less distorted that way


PS MS+T --- some interesting stuff to chew on in your previous posts ---- placing my digestive juices into a higher gear

 

[Mr J]

if there is/are SLF (superior life form) --- rest assured they have knowledge of micro-biology and physics that make Sir Isaac Newton and his mates look like kindergarten students --- and the rest of us "uneducated souls" look like imbeciles :freak3:

I've often imagined that we're just a petri dish in the experiment of an alien science class. I don't think it's any less likely than a 'god', and I think if a god does exist, it may very well be what we would consider to be an alien. Perhaps he had a strong telepathic sense to explain his talk and listening in the bible, and as there's so many of us these days, he can no longer do so . Perhaps he got bored and left - explaining the seemingly absence of miracles and chosen ones.

I find it amazing that so many truly believe in the god of a religion, and totally discount the possibility of aliens. It would be enjoyable to see 'God' beam down from a spaceship, though he'd probably be greeted by the armed forces.

Being open-minded to all possibilities is far more enjoyable than being restricted to one .

 

[Wysiwyg]

i already admit to being an intellectual imbecile --- the truth tends to get less distorted that way

That`s just it. One doesn`t have to be intelligent to be awake. Read Genesis and one doesn`t need intelligence to `know` the `story` is a fabrication from people who did not know. I used to fear speaking this way because I thought I would be persecuted. My knowing has grown since then.

 

[Mr J]

I used to fear speaking this way because I thought I would be persecuted.

It would create a lot of controversy in many communities and fields. For example, the Americans have elected a half-black man as President, but someone who ever questions the existence of 'God' probably has no chance.

Read Genesis and one doesn`t need intelligence to `know` the `story` is a fabrication from people who did not know.

There are otherwise intelligent people who do take it literally and believe it. It's not something I think we'll understand from a logic perspective. I would suggest it's not a rational decision by them, but one of emotion and comfort. Perhaps they like the idea, so they choose to believe it. I think we're emotional creatures before we're logical creatures, so in that sense I think I can understand 'belief' to an extent. I'm utterly incapable of it (belief) myself though.

 

[$20shoes]

Hi $20Shoes,


How would we account for this perception that the "I" endures and experiences the passage of time if no motion through time actually transpires? Are you thinking that the "I" exists in all areas of time but is only aware of experiencing the present?

With respect to the linearity of time and other lines of time outside of the line our universe is bound to, I don't think there is any a priori reason to immediately reject the existence of multiple time lines related to multiple dimensions. If I understand you correctly, then we would roughly agree on that.

Let's assume for the sake of discussion that our time is infinite and has the kind of elasticity you propose. The timeline would still be relative to the universe, or the space-time relations. Einstein showed us that at least.

Stretching it to infinity, IMO, only infinitely increases the need for a sufficient ground (I don't feel this is what you are saying and I need to reread some more). So from your post #1077 I would suggest that your hypothesis is not mutually exclusive of God (however so conceived).

MS, I think you just blew my mind

Regards the enduring self, I'm inclined to this school of thought - "...that the "I" exists in all areas of time but is only aware of experiencing the present" At some point in time, and for what ever reason, the "I" which has always been, "experiences" in the physical sense. In the metaphysical sense the "I" is not grounded whereas the physical incarnation appears to be grounded in the rules of what what we consider the here and now. That is, we are obviously adhering to the rules of the universe but, I believe, only in a physical and measurable capacity, which may be just the immediate layer of the onion.

Possibly the best way to follow this construct, is using the metaphysical truth "All is One. One is All". If time is also part of the All, then perhaps we are revealed in time because there cannot be a time where we're not part of the All. That is, perhaps the experience that the universe seeks ( you , me and all that is known and unknown draws) is a revelation that unfolds in time. Since everything simply "is", nothing is chaotic. We're simply creating our experience ( the true beauty in this is the concept of free will, of a realistic notion of life after death, of God).

Multiple timelines are possible. Even science concedes that our universe is one plane.

My concept is not mutually exclusive of God but perhaps involves God.
The grounding of time would seem necessary, absolutely, and without which we could not have proven many many hypotheses.
However, lets for arguments sake, suggest that time is grounded from one point of nothingness and stretches to another point of nothingness. If elastic, there are questions over how time reveals itself sequentially or why it even reveals itself sequentially. Obviously, the laws of time might still be applicable, but you might need to concede that some "collective" universal melding pot of thought/emotion/spirit/energy is creating the experience that makes sense within that moment.

I really have brain hurties now. Has been a good discussion though

 

[bullsvsbears]

I will depart this thread on this note. It may come as a suprise but I was an atheist at one time. And like most atheists, the issue of people believing in God bothered me greatly. What is it about atheists that we would spend so much time, attention, and energy refuting something that we don't believe even exists?! What causes us to do that? When I was an atheist, I attributed my intentions as caring for those poor, delusional people...to help them realize their hope was completely ill-founded. To be honest, I also had another motive. As I challenged those who believed in God, I was deeply curious to see if they could convince me otherwise. Part of my quest was to become free from the question of God. If I could conclusively prove to believers that they were wrong, then the issue is off the table, and I would be free to go about my life.

I didn't realize that the reason the topic of God weighed so heavily on my mind, was because God was pressing the issue. I have come to find out that God wants to be known. He created us with the intention that we would know him. He has surrounded us with evidence of himself and he keeps the question of his existence squarely before us. It was as if I couldn't escape thinking about the possibility of God. In fact, the day I chose to acknowledge God's existence, my prayer began with, "Ok, you win..." It might be that the underlying reason atheists are bothered by people believing in God is because God is actively pursuing them.

Thanks for everyone's input.

 

[Mr J]

It might be that the underlying reason atheists are bothered by people believing in God is because God is actively pursuing them.

That is simply not the case for me. I'm not really an atheist as I do not presume to know whether or not a god exists, but there is certainly no sense of a god pursuing me with the intention of making me aware of his existence. I see nothing to suggest that it is likely a god exists. As far as I'm concerned, it's just another theory regarding the creation of the universe and the question of why we are here. It may be true, but it does not seem likely.

There are questions to which we do not know the answer. Many feel the need to conjure up theories, however, many accept these theories as truth. There is very little understanding of probabilty shown by either side.

As for the belief of god, it's not that important to me even if I was shown that 'God' does exist. It really wouldn't change my life, and I doubt his opinion of me would change. I would respect him, but not worship him as lord and creator. If he is the source of my creation and worthy of respect, he will appreciate my stance. I don't think the existence of a god would really change anything.

 

[Cartman]

I will depart this thread on this note. It may come as a suprise but I was an atheist at one time. And like most atheists, the issue of people believing in God bothered me greatly. What is it about atheists that we would spend so much time, attention, and energy refuting something that we don't believe even exists?! What causes us to do that? When I was an atheist, I attributed my intentions as caring for those poor, delusional people...to help them realize their hope was completely ill-founded. To be honest, I also had another motive. As I challenged those who believed in God, I was deeply curious to see if they could convince me otherwise. Part of my quest was to become free from the question of God. If I could conclusively prove to believers that they were wrong, then the issue is off the table, and I would be free to go about my life.

I didn't realize that the reason the topic of God weighed so heavily on my mind, was because God was pressing the issue. I have come to find out that God wants to be known. He created us with the intention that we would know him. He has surrounded us with evidence of himself and he keeps the question of his existence squarely before us. It was as if I couldn't escape thinking about the possibility of God. In fact, the day I chose to acknowledge God's existence, my prayer began with, "Ok, you win..." It might be that the underlying reason atheists are bothered by people believing in God is because God is actively pursuing them.

Thanks for everyone's input.

hey BB ---- dont leave now --- that is the sort of stuff everyone is interested in

U will often be ridiculed for your conviction or applauded for your courage to take a stand ---- disregard anyone who has either of those reactions to your statements (cause they are suffering "Dogmatism syndrome" --- tell us more about your "conversion/realisation" ---

the interesting thing about god talks is "atheists" and "godders" who discuss the scenarios are generally both only looking for answers --- dogmatism on either side of the scorecard represents narrow mindedness in my opinion --

 

[MS+Tradesim]

Hey $20Shoes, I turned it up a notch coz I saw you thinking about some pretty abstract stuff there. I can crank it further.

I don't find the "all is one" position persuasive, personally. It has to do with the way I account for individual identity and differentiation by potentialities. I do allow for the bare possibility that "I" might just be an aspect of a greater mind, but it's difficult to get around the reality and intuitive individuality of self. Just ask Descartes: cogito ergo sum.

Our experience of time as sequential is another of those intuitions that are difficult to get around. You raise here the question of the topology, or structure, of time. What does it look like? About 4 years ago I sketched a very brief outline for a theory of time as waves, but I never developed it. Briefly, I hypothesised that time within our universe has a wave structure and that there is not one single timeline for the whole universe but that different areas are travelling at different wavelengths and that time could speed up or slow down in different regions of space. Rather than the universe unfolding on a single line, it would be more like currents in the ocean, figuratively speaking. Now to get really obscure, I wanted to tie it into quantum observer theory. Roughly, when we as humans perceive time to be going really slowly, or really quickly it is in fact the case. The wavelength of time for our mind can actually speed up or slow down independently of the pool of timelines around us that are being travelled by say, the desk, the cat and the wife. On this account, it would be the case that time has an elasticity of a kind explained by its wavelength. But it would still be linear, or rather, its arrow would only point one direction.

Anyways, that's going into some dark places I might never return from. :

 

[trainspotter]

Oh He's real alright and this is what He is telling us. Why would He bother?

 

[$20shoes]

Hey $20Shoes, I turned it up a notch coz I saw you thinking about some pretty abstract stuff there. I can crank it further.
Rather than the universe unfolding on a single line, it would be more like currents in the ocean, figuratively speaking. Now to get really obscure, I wanted to tie it into quantum observer theory.

Like you don't have enough to do already with trading, you thought you might just develop your own time theory!!

That is very interesting though. I had never conceived of this possibility at all!! I think I want to read some stuff on these sort of subjects. I'm not well schooled in this area. If you can recommend anything that would be super.

 

[MS+Tradesim]

$20shoes,

When I first conceived of the idea, I had a look around and couldn't find anything about it apart from one article by a physicist (or someone) who posited a wave view of time (but he never went beyond the basic statement that he thinks time moves in waves), and of course a whole bunch of nebulous stuff on new age sites who seem to co-opt anything. So I don't know of any literature out there about the idea. However, I don't have access to a uni library at the moment or even a decent public library so there could be writing on it that I'm just not aware of.

At the time I used a whiteboard pen and covered every mirror in the house in sketches and ideas. Needless to say, my wife wasn't very happy!

Here are some places to start looking at with respect to general philosophy of time:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/time/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/
http://www.philtimesociety.typepad.com/

Trading is great and I love it but it's only ever been a means to an end which is -> lots of money to help people who need it and lots of time to sit around and ruminate on this kind of crap.

 

[$20shoes]

Cheers for that! Is been fun bouncing around these ideas. A lot for people to chew on...

 

[gav]

Just last week I lost a good friend, died in his sleep aged just 31 - cause unknown... I have spent a lot of time relfecting; wondering if he is in a better place, or if there is simply just a dead body in the ground. I went to a private Catholic school and always believed in God, but over the years I have become skeptical or rational, however you want to put it... These days I really don't know what I believe or think.

I find it strange that on his Facebook page so many people still leave comments, like he can read them from heaven or something. It is almost as if everyone who knew him believes in God and believes in heaven, which I found quite surprising. This got me thinking... maybe these people believe in God (during the time of a death of a loved one) as it helps them with their own grieving process, to think he is in a "better place". Because to think otherwise would be unbearable. Even I would love to think that he is in the gym at heaven, lifting weights as he loved so much...

His beautiful fiance was supposed to move from Canada to Australia this week to live with him, but instead is here for his funeral (which was on Monday). She leaves a very detailed and very touching message on his Facebook wall every morning. (which often gets the better of me if I read it)

I then thought what it would be like to lose those closest to me. If one of my parents or brothers died, I'd be devastated. I would mourn their loss and it would be very difficult for me to move on, but I think eventually I would be OK. I'd see things that would remind me of them and it would have an emotional affect on me, but I'd keep on living.

But if my partner died, there is simply no way I could go on. Life would mean nothing without her. And the thought of her not being in a better place waiting for me would be just too much to bare. I too would be like my friends fiance, and talk or write to my partner every day even though she would no longer be with me. Because to think anything else, well I'd simply lose any motivation to be alive.

It is strange that I can see this irrationality in another human/s, but at the same time knowing I'd do exactly the same in that situation...

 

[Julia]

Gav, I'm so sorry about your friend. That is just dreadfully young to die.

I guess we all deal with death and loss in different ways, but the apparently irrational 'communicating' with the dead person is I think common, perhaps in an attempt to bridge that gap from the person being alive, and acknowledging the hard reality that you will never see them or speak to them again.

The other aspect to consider is that when we're shocked, saddened and grieving we lose our objectivity as emotions overwhelm us. We find it somehow comforting to "talk to" the dead person.

The whole death question is one where I can really feel envious of those with religious beliefs. It must be immensely comforting to believe that someone you love has 'gone to a better place'. I think there's a bit in the Bible somewhere where Jesus says "I go to prepare a place for you".

My father was a highly intelligent, very well educated person, had no time whatsoever for religion but nevertheless had an unshakeable conviction that there was some sort of perpetual spiritual existence. I jokingly said to him, 'well, when you die, send me a sign that proves this'. I have never had any sense of him communicating with me, but a very odd thing did happen a few months after he died.

I happened to be walking past his house which had been sold and was then rented to a middle aged couple who were on that day working in the front garden. We got chatting and I said that my father had previously lived there.
They looked at each other and went very quiet. I asked if something was wrong. They hummed and hahed and then explained that they had just given notice to leave because the house had a 'bad feeling' and they had been woken several times at night by the sense of someone sitting on the bed and sighing heavily. Also they had both had the peculiar sense that this being/entity was very wet though they couldn't at all explain that.
They knew nothing about who had previously owned the house and had no way of knowing that my father had drowned himself.

These people were ordinary, pragmatic and said they'd never before had any remotely similar experiences. Maybe nothing to it at all, but it was a bit weird.

Sorry, Gav, I didn't mean to digress. Grieving is a very personal process.
It's intensely painful but my own experience is that it's best to just go with it and gradually the pain diminishes.

I think, too, the 'talking' to the person who has died, or posting up comments on a networking site, is a way of honouring that person and the contribution they have made to your life.

These comments will mean a great deal to your friend's family.

So sorry for your loss.
Best wishes
Julia

 

[Boggo]

Have a read of this while the link still works.

Something out there somewhere

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...ted-Our-son-World-War-II-pilot-come-life.html

PS. Sorry for your loss gav

 

[mellifuous]

No,I do not believe in god because the idea was created from human mind.The other living organisms on the earth have no words to explain things either.

I'm starting to believe you Wysiwyg, no matter how many times I ask my dog, it won't give me the explanation I seek.