God?

[CAT]

Re: Scientifically sound Bible...

Roel, Its good to know that someone is thourouly reading and putting some thought into my posts, checking out the facts and reading their Bible!!! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif Which goes to prove that though my errors may look counterproductive, even in error there is purpose...

I'm quite sure that there are many verses in the Bible that predict the world being round... However the one that I find most intriguing tells us "indirectly" that the world was round. And if you are clever enough, you can figure it out...

(Luke 17:34-36). "I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left".

Therefore, when the Lord was describing to the Pharisees the manner of His coming when He comes to set up His kingdom. "In that night" when He comes to judge the world and to set up His kingdom, there will be people doing the following three things: (1) sleeping (2) grinding corn (3) working in the fields.

When do people sleep? - At night...

When are Eastern women grinding to make flour for the day's bread? - Early morning...

When are men working in the field?- Broad daylight...

This means that at the same moment that G-d comes it will be night some place on earth, early morning somewhere else and broad daylight in yet another place. One can easily see that in order for that to be true, the world would have to be round! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Moreover scientists have discovered an upper atmospheric layer called Kennelly-Heaviside layer (ionosphere) over the earth which looks like glass and protects us from harmful rays emanating from the sun, which also reflects electromagnetic waves (radio waves) back to the earth. What does the Bible have to say on this? Many centuries before this was discovered, it was written in Job 37:18 that "He spread out the skies strong as a cast metal mirror".

However, it was not until 1900 that its existence was detected... Propagation is affected by time of day. During the daytime the solar wind presses this layer closer to the Earth, thereby limiting how far it can reflect radio waves. On the night side of the Earth, the solar wind drags the ionosphere further away, thereby greatly increasing the range which radio waves can travel by reflection, called skywave. The extend of the effect is further influenced by the season (because of the differing distance between Earth and the Sun), and the amount of sunspot activity.

Yes Nicknack good assumption in realizing there is a creator! Assuming there is no creator is like the odds of a tornado passing over a junk yard and assembling a Boeing 747! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Sorry out of time, gotta go! If you reply back, I wont be able to answer... I'm awaiting a flight out of town and wont have internet access for quite some time!

Take care everyone! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[Roel van Houten]

Re: Scientifically sound Bible...

It is just right to support life, which is US!

That is in no way an indication that our planet - or the universe for that matter - was created by an intelligent being. In fact, I think it shows the opposite. If the earth indeed was created, then why are there billions of other planets that don't have the same conditions that allow lifeforms to exist?



Oh, by the way:


I can't remember, but hey, even he admitted finally that the universe had to have a Creator!

and

Even Einstein made mistakes,

/ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

There has to be a Creator no matter how hard we try to believe there is not.

I beg to differ. But perhaps if you keep repeating it over and over again, I'll start believing it. That's what we call indoctrination

 

[Roel van Houten]

Re: Scientifically sound Bible...

Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

I admit I was wrong all the time. After reading this passage I think I desperately need to study the bible more thoroughly

Which goes to prove that though it may look counterproductive, even in error there is purpose...

Well, I can't say it's counterproductive. I actually find reading the bible quite useful. The more I study it, the more I realise that there is no such thing as a creator.

One can easily see that in order for that to be true, the world would have to be round!

You have to be kidding me? How on earth did you jump to that conclusion? Don't you see how you have to twist the story in order to make it fit your statement? I sincerely hope that wasn't your best shot.

Yes Nicknack good assumption in realizing there is a creator! Assuming there is no creator is like the odds of a tornado passing over a junk yard and assembling a Boeing 747!

Geee, I was just driving by a junkyard and guess what happened?

Have a safe trip.

Roel

 

[nicknack]

Re: Scientifically sound Bible...

That is in no way an indication that our planet - or the universe for that matter - was created by an intelligent being. In fact, I think it shows the opposite. If the earth indeed was created, then why are there billions of other planets that don't have the same conditions that allow lifeforms to exist?

The same reason why we are special and allowed to exist and have life as compared to other billions of solar systems. That's what makes us so special.

I was referring to Einstein's mistake in adding a fudge factor and an algebraic mistake in his calculations in trying to prove that the universe is eternal.

Now Roel, what do you believe that the Universe is eternal OR it has a beginning?

Well, there has to be a creator. If not, how did the universe come about? It couldn't just happen like that.

I can't change your thinking as an atheist, but in the end, we all will learn the truth anyway! So I'm not regretting in believing than disbelieving.

 

[Ofstadtech]

Re: Scientifically sound Bible...

Nicknack:

You are talking about that the universe could not have come to be by coincidence. That it must have been startet by someone or something, which you call creator.

Evolution is pretty relevant here; would you say that evoltuion is somehow planned or organized? I strongly believe that evolution is absolutely random, and since it is, the creation of the universe is also completely random (not planned, organized or started by someone or something).
This thought makes it easier to accept why there is life on earth, why we havent found life elsewhere yet, but that there should be other planets somewhere containing life in some form.

I also think science proved the bible wrong a long time ago. There is no reason to believe one single sentence of it, when we have discovered how much of it is incorrect today. I know it must have been said a hundred times before in this discussion, but religion is made up by humans with the need to explain the unexplainable.

 

[KerrTexas]

Re: Scientifically sound Bible...

If I may...
The facts indicate otherwise, my friend. The tight tolerances of the creation of the Universe by mere chance are EXTREMELY improbable to begin with, and yet the Universe maintains an equilibrium and balance, defying even greater odds.

Even after the Universe is created and maintained within this narrow band of probability, intelligent ( ? ) life evolves in a very short time span. Regarding creation as told within many relgious texts, there are no " missing links", and no questions unanswered as to the events that unfolded leading to what we experience today regarding creation and our existence.

...when we have discovered how much of it is incorrect today.

And which parts are those?

If you try to read the Bible as a novel, you will not understand it. Science has NOT proven the Bible incorrect. Most people that claim that the Bible doesnt make any sense, this is because they are missing something very important...the spirit to know God. Without it , you will never understand the passages within any Bible. From the comments regarding the Word of God, you seemingly dont know how to read the Bible, nor what The Word of God really means.

Many of the principles as presented within the Zohar and its companion texts DO become supported by science as more discoveries are made regarding the attributes of our Universe.

You can close your eyes, and silence the voice of God as much as you want, and rationalize it to your hearts content, but the day is coming, that the absolute proof you demand will be presented. It is unfortunate that since you have decided to not know God within your heart, when God reveals himself to the world, within His heart, God will not know you.

 

[nicknack]

Re: Scientifically sound Bible...

Ofstadtech:

Yes. I am talking about a Creator, an Entity that has created LIFE, and what is actually meaningful instead of casting if off as an event on random occurrence. You see, for our planet to actually have life is probably a single event! Yes the universe is big, but consider the factors. The universe AND earth is tuned in such a perfect position where we don't get too hot or too cold, or lack things that might of cause not let us exist at all. Even if it were by chance, what chance would there be of evolution if other planets do not have the capability to support simple life at all? We are talking SUPER LUCKY here, we are talking about the odds of somebody buying the lottery and winning a million times in a row. That is the chance we need to exist right now!

As you know there are research teams who have been searching for extraterrestial life, like SETI, who has searched in vain for 30 years now. Even astronomers doubt that life is possible within the range of the nearby solar systems as most of them are not even able to support life like earth. If you talk about evolution, why should earth be so special? Why not mars or venus. Mars COULD be like earth, but why not? Don't you see, this cannot be by chance nor evolution for the gap is too wide and impossible. The possibility of a Creator is what accounts for the sudden Big Bang, what meaning is there for something to be created out of nothing, to have matter all squeezed up ready to release at what time, what meaning, what reason!

Finally, I don't see how science has proven the Bible wrong at all. There is so far no outstanding or extraordinary proof that the Bible is an actual hoax. While most people use religion as a crutch for their lives, they are not stupid either. At least they have something to believe and I know they are all good people who want something with their lives. Instead of criticizing them, make an effort to think why they would sacrifice their sundays and part with their money to go to church OR some people who choose to give up life's enjoyments and pleasures to gain enlightenment. Your comment that the Bible is a fake is very selfish and narrow minded.

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: Scientifically sound Bible...

(A message to all who monitor this thread, not necessarily or specifically Roel).

I've done some interesting work over the last few days. Things I cannot talk about, but I can talk about the impact they have had on me. And while doing this work, this thread, and those who are either denying the Creative Force, or simply obstinately waiting for someone else to bring them "proof," came to mind.

The evidence is "out there", all around us. And those of us who have described how to integrate that evidence have done quite a job of describing that evidence. And yet, as mentioned several times, one must integrate that evidence on their own. No one can do it for you, since the topic is the eventual Source of All.

The evidence, the "reality," has been accurately described in scientific terms. It cannot be disputed (or, if it is disputed, you are simply fooling yourself by not taking into account the connecting of all sub-energetic forms). The evidence of a Creator is the simple fact that there is NOTHING in our universe but Energy. It is THE ONLY, overarching, undeniable TRUTH of this entire universe. And it is fully supported by the most advanced scientific thoughts of our times (of which the laws of thermodynamics and relativity have been quoted here).

Those who insist that they "see no evidence of a God" are operating from an erroneous, illusionary scientific position, for they are operating from a position where they perceive themselves and their perceptions as "separate" from total universal Energy that comprises everything. In making such observations, these people are, quite literally, forcibly disconnecting themselves from this Sole Source....the totality of universal Energy. They are applying the illusions of the separateness of Mass, Space, and Time in a disconnected manner to claim there is no Creator. They are not considering the universe in its true, integrated state of Energy. Rather, they are trying to consider the universe in the "pieces" of Energy which we perceive as Mass, Space, and Time. Such a consideration is, by its very nature of excluding any small amount of total universal Energy, incomplete.

We have shown in this thread, and it has not been adequately disputed, that WE are Creators. We use our INTENTION to draw specific configurations of Mass, Time, and Space from the universal, eternal conglomeration of Energy. Any and every instantiation of any creation is but one small piece of evidence that there is a Creator. The fact that you cannot see that your own Creations are fully integrated into the entire universe's fabric of Creation is merely your willful obstinance in clinging to your ego, which seeks to keep you separate from the totality of Energy, which is our Source.

God is the Creator. God is INTENTION. Intention to Create. And yes, this means we are all elements of God, as we all possess intention. Such a realization does not, in any way, make this argument for the evidence of God "invalid" as some linear thinkers have attempted to express in this thread.

There has been another example put forth in this thread that has been summarily ignored by those who still claim there is no ultimate Creator. This example is the wonderful creation of the modern PC, but which we are permitted to hold these discussions. Another example is the 747 and tornado example that CAT left us with.

We have absolutely NO evidence that anywhere, at any time in our universe, a PC has (by chance) assembled itself from the universal source of energy, plugged itself in, and, indeed, figured out a way to power itself. The PC represents a highly unlikely form of Mass, and Space, and Time, which none of us would ever assume to have "come about by chance". We know better. We know it took an act of Creation, and that act of Creation was brought about by INTENTION.

Now I would like you to tranform this argument we have had (using PCs) into the "universe" within which PCs find themselves as operating entities of Massive SpaceTime. Imagine PCs chatting amongst themselves about the possibility of there being a God. They would wonder at themselves, and at how efficient they are, and how tight the tolerances are for their continued existence. They would wonder "could all of this have come about by chance?" Some PCs would "know the Truth" and laugh at those others who would think "oh sure, it's possible we all came about by chance, by evolution. We see it in our archaeological evidence. We evolved from single-celled organisms that we call vaccuum tubes." /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif Such arguments amongst atheistic PCs would continue that "there is absolutely NO evidence that there was any Creator." They would think in such a way because their perceptions would not be able to "see" humans. All they would "know" is that things happen to them (keyboard strokes, mouse clicks, button pushes).

Some of us "human PCs" have come to understand that there is a single source of universal Energy, and further come to understand that the Creator is represented by this totality of Energy, but that the Creator Itself is not only the Energy, but the most expansive aspect of this Creator is its INTENTION to Create. And this INTENTION is soemthing that we share with our Creator.

We are all free to continue along with our games and illusions of Massive SpaceTime. But as I have tirelessly pointed out: As long as you believe that Mass is separate from Space is separate from Time, you will be locked within the limited view that such illusions provide. You will never break-out, and you will forever be a slave to linearity. You will not be able to partake of the expansive glory of Creation until you "complete the circle" and partake in the "closed loop" of INTENTION in our universe.

Be Well, and rejoice in your Creations, and thank your higher consciousness for allowing us to partake in the field of Creative Intention. Your Creator is continuously pushing your mouse button on the "WAKE UP" icon on your screen. Those who have found the subroutine that is to be activated to "WAKE UP" are now performing a whole new level of processing. Those who have not found that subroutine continue to avoid looking for that subroutine, and instead keep reporting back to their Creator "file not found". Such a PC that refuses to operate in a manner that is in consonance with the INTENTION of its Creator will eventually be left behind by said Creator.

RMT

 

[Damir]

Re: Scientifically sound Bible...

RainManTime,

I congratulate you on:

The evidence is "out there", all around us. And those of us who have described how to integrate that evidence have done quite a job of describing that evidence. And yet, as mentioned several times, one must integrate that evidence on their own.

The evidence is indeed "out there" - in font of our noses. It is hidden in infinities of colours, shapes, sounds etc. our conceptual systems simply cannot handle.

And you have properly identify "error" we all are doing:

operating from an erroneous, illusionary scientific position, for they are operating from a position where they perceive themselves and their perceptions as "separate"

I have identified it in position our consciousness takes. (See my web-page Consciousness )

However, what it is an evidence of is a bit strained - for a simple reason. Our conceptual systems are currently unable to handle these infinities - and therefore a problem: Can we talk about Creator or God here in a classical sense?

I have noted a significant shift of meaning, but it does not go far enough. In a sense somebody else might go through similar experiences and give them different conceptual outline. These outlines may converge, but they will become one only when we learn to manage somehow infinities within our adapted conceptual systems - and this is currently not the case.

Sincerely,

Damir

 

[KerrTexas]

Re: Scientifically sound Bible...

Damir;

Very interesting website you have created. It will take some time to navigate through all the information. You certainly have given the subject(s) alot of time and consideration. I did follow your link to the consciousness portion and read that page as in depth as time permitted.

My path didnt follow a trail of 'higher' education within any University System, so I hope my questions dont seem somewhat 'below' your level of thought processes.

In the consciousness portion of your website, you mention the following illusions...

1. Seeing the world and ourselves within it as a closed (finite) system.
2. Being "above" (or outside of) this closed (finite) system.

...and there was a third that I left out, so if anybody wants to know what the third illusion is, you should follow Damir's link.

My question is this...

If it is an illusion when you are seeing the world and ourselves within it as a closed system, yet on the other hand, it is also an illusion when being 'above' ( or outside of ) this closed system, then what is reality?

You also mentioned consciousness 'missing' during some portions of human history or developement. I am curious as to what exactly is your definition of consciousness in laymans terms.

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: Scientifically sound Bible...

Greetings Damir,

Our conceptual systems are currently unable to handle these infinities - and therefore a problem: Can we talk about Creator or God here in a classical sense?

I heartily agree! The "classical" notion of God is on its way out, as it should be. It is my opinion that our theories of both theology and science must continually change, and as they move closer towards each other we will begin to understand the universe more completely. For when you look at the basis of both of these forms of thought, are they not both focused on understanding? And yet they approach understanding from opposing vantage points.

These outlines may converge, but they will become one only when we learn to manage somehow infinities within our adapted conceptual systems - and this is currently not the case.

And so, in reading some of your website offerings, I would assume that you would agree that our task becomes a mental one. In other words, we must change the way we perceive, conceive, and reach conclusions about these perceptions and conceptions. It would seem to me that being able to manage the infinities of "reality" requires us to transcend the "point-self" that we have set up as our cultural worldview. And to me this means being able to look BEYOND the linear cause-and-effect model that so much of our science seems to be based upon.

While our science and scientific thought has served us well in the past, it is quickly reaching its limits (and may have already reached its limits). Any further evolution is going to require moving beyond the rigorous, and yes, linear, methods and philosophies that have served us so well.

It will be a difficult time, to say the least. Perhaps most difficult for those who cannot see that it is possible to evolve beyond the existing (self-imposed) boundaries of what constitutes "proper" scientific thought.

It will take me awhile to read and contemplate your web pages. Such material does not come easy, as I am sure you know. Yet I am quite intrigued by several of your topics, and would really enjoy a deeper discussion on the topic of information with you. My own work and research in non-linear, closed-loop dynamics tells me that information is a major component in understanding the interconnectedness of all sub-energetic forms in our universe. I do believe information is the key towards our evolution of a conceptual framework that can transcend our "point-self" views.

RMT

 

[Damir]

Re: Scientifically sound Bible...

Thomas,

Thank you.

You also mentioned consciousness 'missing' during some portions of human history or developement. I am curious as to what exactly is your definition of consciousness in laymans terms.

Let us start with this. Philosophers talk about consciousness as it is "just about everything about us". This is practically meaningles since they cannot even agree what attributes of this consciousness would be.

Since I like to know what I'm talking about, I prefer definition psychologists and neurobiologists use. It is simply related to what we are conscious of and excludes what we are not conscious of. This would mean that consciousness could be described as a kind of "holder" that contains what we are conscious of - with a half a second delay. And this is very little compared to what we are not conscious of - between 5 and 40 "items" at the time (depending on the method used to "count").

If it is an illusion when you are seeing the world and ourselves within it as a closed system, yet on the other hand, it is also an illusion when being 'above' ( or outside of ) this closed system, then what is reality?

I assume that under "reality" you mean what I call "out there" and this is a tricky one to answer directly. I'm dealing with the "out there" from the perspective of so called active perception. This would mean that at any point in time we "construct" a "description of the world and ourselves within it" and seek confirmations (feelings/impressions) only from the "out there". However, confirmations could be partial and even entirely absent - resulting in twisted perceptions that we often do not even notice.

All in all - we can say that we are close to the "out there" - but how much remains we do not have a clue.

Here we have an interesting finding. Few Buddhistic monks meditated (with their eyes open) while fMRI scans of their brain was taken. This showed that they managed to significantly reduce activities in their brains responsible for our sense of space and time. And indeed, "subjective" experiences of timelesness and spacelesness that lead towards a very profound perception of the world seem to be confirmed by this. This is probably not the only way of how we can get closer to out there - but this is the only I know of that is scientifically confirmed and personally experienced.

This also might pose an interesting question at this forum. How much our sense of space and time(and this includes our theories) might be misleading?

Also - You will be surprised how high percentage (80% according to some estimates) of "higher" educated people "think within the box" and simply repeat what they learned at school. I would therfore suggest to drop that "below" - it's simply out of place.

Sincerely,

Damir

 

[KerrTexas]

Re: Scientifically sound Bible...

Since I like to know what I'm talking about, I prefer definition psychologists and neurobiologists use. It is simply related to what we are conscious of and excludes what we are not conscious of. This would mean that consciousness could be described as a kind of "holder" that contains what we are conscious of - with a half a second delay. And this is very little compared to what we are not conscious of - between 5 and 40 "items" at the time (depending on the method used to "count").

Even this seems to have somewhat of a grey area. I would say that "awareness" could apply for a portion of the definition. To clarify the definition, as I type out the words on the keyboard, I am "conscious" of the letters on the keys. A dog is barking in the distance, so this too is part of the consciousness process?
Or are you referring to the memory that I require to compose my reponse to your reply?

And how is it possible to compare what you are conscious of as oppossed to what you are not conscious of?

The definition or description I have settled on is that our consciousness is that part of the mind that interacts with the physical world. The consciousness then can be divided into two basic sub-divisions, emotional and logical. I think this is still somewhat a vague definition, because I feel that the sub-consciousness "bleeds" into consciousness and effects the decision processes.

To illustrate my point, many years ago I had a dream in which an earthquake started and I needed to find my girlfriend to warn her to get out of the house. In the dream I was running through the house, searching for her as the ground trembled.

I ran to the front door and opened it, and thank God, I found her coming towards the house, carrying groceries. I tried so hard to yell to her that it was an earthquake, but to my amazement, my mind could not connect the word earthquake to my vocal chords. My logical mind knew exactly what word was needed, but for some reason was disconnected from operation of the bodily tools.
I ended up yelling, " It's a Mover! " ... " It's a Mover! ".

At this point I woke up and literally was standing at the front door yelling in my girlfriends face. She was flabbergasted, as I actually had been yelling at her about the "mover".

I contemplated the incident in depth, because I was disturbed that in my sleep, I had got up out of the bed, opened a locked bedroom door, ran around furniture, unchained and unbolted the front door, and unlatched the screen door and was on my way out to 'find' my girlfriend to warn her about the earthquake. To this day I wonder whether or not I would have got into my car and driven off.

The dynamics of the whole thing was astounding. My logical portion of my mind watched the whole dream unfold, yet couldn't participate, just observe. I realized the dream was completely emotionaly driven. The sub-conscious was in complete control. When the moment arrived to actually communicate, it did not have the ability to draw up or make the connection to the word earthquake and used the nearest "emotional" description of what it was experiencing at the moment.

This word was " Mover". That is exactly waht is occuring during an earthquake, everything is moving.

Now, from the sub-conscious portion, I believe we step off into the esoteric realm, the link to the spiritual influences. I believe the 'higher-self' ( for lack of a better definition ) uses symbology as it communicates through the sub-conscious. Our logical mind is always so busy with external 'noise' that the messages or communications are obscured, if not totally ignored.

Thus we dream the messages, review the communication as received by or through the sub-consciousness. This is why dreams are so unusual, is because the language the sub-consciousness utilizes is from an emotional base. It doesn't define objects to what they are, but to the emotional attachments surrounding the objects.

The reason why I say this is because it was hardly a month later, when the emotional scenario was played out EXACTLY as in the dream. The EXACT same emotions, in just the right order, matched perfectly to the dream. The message, once I understood the language, was clear as if written out on paper.

I now can translate my dreams, now that I was provided a "rosetta stone" ( so to speak ).

Buddhistic monks meditated (with their eyes open) while fMRI scans of their brain was taken. This showed that they managed to significantly reduce activities in their brains responsible for our sense of space and time.

I believe this is because the consciousness, is blotted out, the exterior AND interior distractions are eliminated and the 'individual ' retreats (or has the opportunity to) into the esoteric realm.

Keep in mind, these levels of Being are not sharp and have a clear border, but blend in, as the spectrum of colors does not have clear, distinct dividing lines.

... but this is the only I know of that is scientifically confirmed and personally experienced.

Exactly! Experienced is the KEY word! If God came to you personally and provided you with a message to share to the world...Good Luck!

No matter how absolutely God proved Himself to you, you would have a very difficult time convincing anybody that He gave you a message to share with them. You would know for certain that God exists because of your "experience".

The only people you could share the message with would be those who also had an experience that confirmed their belief in God. Once this has occurred and you want to know as much about God as you could find, who would you turn to...the atheists? Or those that have a lineage that goes back thousands of years with research about God?

When I visit an Adept, disciplined, Black Magician friend of mine and unusual odors spring up, and the air seems to become heavier, and the power just seems to cloak the room in its folds, and then a voice issues from the shadows, I will tell you this, the dynamics of the psychological portions of my brain don't matter much anymore at that moment. My Nikes do and how well my feet can utilize them become of primary importance.

By searching for the dynamics of how the brain functions is great, it leaves out those portions that are intangible or dont necessarily abide within the human form.

 

[Damir]

Re: Scientifically sound Bible...

RainManTime,

Thank you.

I would assume that you would agree that our task becomes a mental one.

Yew York police investigators are bein trained to interpret involuntary and hard to notice twitches of facial mucles during questionings. They reported their own amazement on how much are our innermost thoughts revailed.

Imagine someone becoming an expert... I would agree that our innermost thoughts and feelings are entirely "displayed" to the "out there". And this removes our inner/outer (matter/spirit) division.

It would seem to me that being able to manage the infinities of "reality" requires us to transcend the "point-self" that we have set up as our cultural worldview. And to me this means being able to look BEYOND the linear cause-and-effect model that so much of our science seems to be based upon.

It appears that you are a bit familiar with complexity theory. I would agree. However, there is an issue in complexity theory that needs to be resolved (and this may transform it):

Closed loop and limited number of agents. Current math is limited in this sense.

...would really enjoy a deeper discussion on the topic of information with you.

Not a problem although the pace will be a bit slow. (I have to tend my own discussion group and on the top of it - I'm preparing the sixth edition of my web-site.)

Sincerely,

Damir

 

[nicknack]

Re: Scientifically sound Bible...

Strange, Mr. RainManTime. How strange, you seem to have intergrated a zen-buddhist yet Creator effect in your explanation, I'm afraid I cannot agree on everything you see. The Creator is not the energy, the energy we feel, we touch, the energy around us is souless. IT is lifeless. The Creator creates the energy for one sole purpose, to fuel life and balance in the Universe. The Creator is not the Energy.

Yes, I'm afraid this illusion you talk about is real, for this Universe is unlike what we will transcend in our after lives. It will have no laws, no energy we speak of right now. It is pure and eternal. The truth is revealed to many, but only some partake it. Can't do much, can't we?

 

[Roel van Houten]

Re: Scientifically sound Bible...

The same reason why we are special and allowed to exist and have life as compared to other billions of solar systems. That's what makes us so special.

I think we're not as special as we might want to believe. The conditions on our planet happen to be just right for us. There's no way of telling if there are any other planets in the entire universe that allow similar lifeforms to exist. It's very well possible that we're not the only intelligent lifeform in this universe.

I was referring to Einstein's mistake in adding a fudge factor and an algebraic mistake in his calculations in trying to prove that the universe is eternal.

Yes, I was aware of that. But if Einstein was capable of making mistakes, then his view of god or a creator could very well be a mistake as well.

Now Roel, what do you believe that the Universe is eternal OR it has a beginning?

I do not believe either until there's proof. We simply don't know. You can claim the existence of a creator, but the next logical question would be "how did this creator come to being?". Try answering that question for a change /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Well, there has to be a creator. If not, how did the universe come about? It couldn't just happen like that.

If there HAS to be a creator, then there HAS to be a creator that created the creator and so on... After all... "it couldn't just happen like that". See, just because we don't know how the universe came to being doesn't mean there HAS to be a creator. In fact, that's probably the worst reason for believing in god.

I can't change your thinking as an atheist, but in the end, we all will learn the truth anyway! So I'm not regretting in believing than disbelieving.

And I can't change your thinking as a believer. Somehow people who believe in a god tend to think they know things better than non-believers. Almost every debate ends with a believer saying things like "no matter what you believe, god exists anyway"... and that's just plain stupid in my opinion.

I enjoy each and every day of my life and I do not regret being an atheist either.



Roel

 

[Roel van Houten]

Re: Scientifically sound Bible...

Finally, I don't see how science has proven the Bible wrong at all.

Well, the text in itself is one big pile of contradictions and impossibilities. I can only imagine that the bible needs a certain way of interpreting to truly understand its meaning.

Roel

 

[Roel van Houten]

Re: Scientifically sound Bible...

(A message to all who have recently written a message to all who monitor this thread, not necessarily or specifically Ray

)

And while doing this work, this thread, and those who are either denying the Creative Force, or simply obstinately waiting for someone else to bring them "proof," came to mind.

I do not think there's a Creative Force that created us. But to me that's not the absolute truth. Thinking you have found the absolute truth is the most dangerous thing you could ever do. I do not expect anyone to "bring me proof" since I do not have an uncontrollable urge to believe in a creator. However, if someone brings up the subject and claims that there IS a creator, I indeed expect them to bring me proof.

Those who insist that they "see no evidence of a God" are operating from an erroneous, illusionary scientific position, for they are operating from a position where t hey perceive themselves and their perceptions as "separate" from total universal Energy that comprises everything.

In that case you could say that there's no such thing as a creator. If we can't be seen seperate from total universal Energy, then there was never need for a creator. After all, a creator that is part of (or consist of) the total universal Energy does not need to create what it already is. If what you say is true (which I think it is, but only to a certain extent), then "the creator" did not "create"... instead the creator was always there. Now you could have skipped this part and listened to me right away... /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif There's no intelligent driving force behind our existence.

Those who have found the subroutine that is to be activated to "WAKE UP" are now performing a whole new level of processing.

Allow yourself to think about the possibility that YOU might be the one who needs to "WAKE UP". I admit and I have done so in this entire thread that I can't prove that there is no creator, which also implies that I have to admit that there is a possibility that I need to "WAKE UP". You, however, think you have reached somekind of "higher plane" and you refuse to look back "down".

I will go as far as to claim that YOU are thinking in the most LINEAR way imagineable. I think you need to take a step back to be able to take a NON-LINEAR approach.

Roel

 

[nicknack]

Re: Scientifically sound Bible...

I think we're not as special as we might want to believe. The conditions on our planet happen to be just right for us. There's no way of telling if there are any other planets in the entire universe that allow similar lifeforms to exist. It's very well possible that we're not the only intelligent lifeform in this universe.

I'm not saying there isn't other life. Well, yeah, the universe is huge and our technology isn't capable of going on to other planets to look for life either. What I'm saying is that the chances of life is very very low out there, thats what makes us special. Anyway, we haven't found other life yet, not even on mars. So there is nothing to say about ET life yet.

Yes, I was aware of that. But if Einstein was capable of making mistakes, then his view of god or a creator could very well be a mistake as well.

I'm glad you realised that we all make mistakes, you could be mistaken too. You see, after his 2 major mistakes in his calculations in trying to prove that the universe was eternal, it was only right for him to believe in a beginning because that was the corrected version of his formulae. Anyway, he did not find those mistakes, other mathematicians found it out themselves, so are they wrong? Because many other mathematicians verified the mistakes themselves too.

I do not believe either until there's proof. We simply don't know. You can claim the existence of a creator, but the next logical question would be "how did this creator come to being?". Try answering that question for a change

For that question, well, it comes down to this. Since the Creator created the Universe. Then, creation in fact, is a new thing. All matter in the Universe is constant, there is no creation or destruction, it is only all conversion of energy etc. So the only thing that can create is the Creator. Meanwhile, other side the lines of the Universe there is no such thing as existence, time, creation or anything like that.

If there HAS to be a creator, then there HAS to be a creator that created the creator and so on... After all... "it couldn't just happen like that". See, just because we don't know how the universe came to being doesn't mean there HAS to be a creator. In fact, that's probably the worst reason for believing in god.

Heh, look above!

Well, the text in itself is one big pile of contradictions and impossibilities. I can only imagine that the bible needs a certain way of interpreting to truly understand its meaning.

Contradictions I understand, perhaps in the translated versions yes. After all, Hebrew certainly cannot be directly translated to english.

/ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[Roel van Houten]

Re: Scientifically sound Bible...

Anyway, we haven't found other life yet, not even on mars.

Life as we know it, requires a certain set of conditions that happen to be just right on our planet. However, life can manifest itself in many different forms. So while our species may be unique, I bet there are billions of other species out there that are just as unique. To me the fact that there are so many external factors that have formed life on this planet, shows that it is not an act of creation but simply a coincidence of circumstances.

I'm glad you realised that we all make mistakes, you could be mistaken too.

Yes, exactly. I might be mistaken, but no more or less than you. Do you agree that there is a possibility that god does NOT exist?

Since the Creator created the Universe. Then, creation in fact, is a new thing. All matter in the Universe is constant, there is no creation or destruction, it is only all conversion of energy etc.

Whoa there. If the creator created the universe, then creation is not a new thing. There had to be "creation" in order for the creator to be able to create the universe. Also, if the creator is part of the universe he created, that would mean that he created himself.

The point is that if a creator can arise from nothing, then the same would apply for the universe itself... There's no need for a creator in the scenario you're describing.

Heh, look above!

Heh, I guess it's your turn to look above now

Contradictions I understand, perhaps in the translated versions yes. After all, Hebrew certainly cannot be directly translated to english.

I do not understand Hebrew, so I'm unable to judge whether these contradictions are present in the original Hebrew version of the bible. However, I find it hard to believe that all translations are really that bad.


Roel