In Triplicate, Please!

Re: Holographic Universe

Roel, Deny the highway and you lose the path. Deny the builder of the road and you will never come to His, and thus your, destination.
Click to expand...

Funny how people always think they know my destination. I'm not denying anything, I'm just saying there is no phyisical evidence of a divine force. I'm very openminded, but no one is willing or capable of providing me with evidence.

/ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Roel
 
Re: EVIDENCE of the divine...

Funny how people always think they know my destination. I'm not denying anything, I'm just saying there is no phyisical evidence of a divine force. I'm very openminded, but no one is willing or capable of providing me with evidence.
Click to expand...

Roel, There is EVIDENCE of the divine! Though no one can realistically theorize it? No one can see Atomic Particles with their physical eyes, yet they are there!

One aspect of matter that remains unexplained, is what exactly causes life? Reality made up of a series of microscopic cells, each of which is a combination of molecules which are the combinations of atoms. Atoms are made up of neutrons and protons that form the atomic nucleus.

Also to ascertaine that even smaller particles form the neutrons and protons within the atomic nucleus called quarks made up of three apiece. Additionally there are a number of other sub atomic particles that form the menagerie of atomic structure. Yet with all these particles there is a cohesive force that binds them together.

But no one seems to know what that force is? The force behind "electrons" that directs them in their function? those negatively charged particles which define the parameters and the energy fields which give rise to that which we recognize as physical form. Yet, the electrons themselves are not form as we know it. They are energy, an energy which gives rise to form but itself is not form.
 
Re: EVIDENCE of the divine...

Roel, There is EVIDENCE of the divine!
Click to expand...

No there isn't. If you believe that there is, then I'm sure you can provide evidence.

Nothing else you've said in your post is relevent to the divine, let alone evidence of it.
 
Re: EVIDENCE of the divine...

Roel, There is EVIDENCE of the divine! Though no one can realistically theorize it? No one can see Atomic Particles with their physical eyes, yet they are there!
Click to expand...

Of course there are things we can't explain yet. But instead of calling it "the divine" lets just make an effort to see what it really is.

Roel
 
Re: EVIDENCE of the divine...

evidence of "the divine" stares you right in the face...existance

unless you want to believe everything was just one massive perfect mistake?
 
Re: EVIDENCE of the divine...

Roel, There is EVIDENCE of the divine!
Click to expand...

I agree. And more and more evidence is being discovered every day. Roel, I'd like you to serisously consider the new scientific findings on Dark Energy. Consider that we are now finding, and proving with scientific measurements, that there is a VAST, unseen source of energy in our universe. The energy of the gravitating matter we see is only about 6%. The stuff you cannot perceive at all, this Dark Energy, is showing to be the largest percentage of total energy... around 60-70%. And the rest, they say, is Dark Matter, which one could read as "black holes"...around another 24-34%.

Now consider how this plays-into what I have been saying about our senses, and how what they tell us is really only a small (very small, as it would seem) part of "reality". The things we are discovering, and are yet to discover, about Dark Energy are going to change our world views. I'd hazard to guess they may even change some of yours. If your senses are only giving you 6% of the total picture of energy and reality, statistics clearly show that you have probably come to some erroneous conclusions if you base all your beliefs solely on what you sense from your perceptions.

This is really simple mathematical and engineering fact. I'll use an analogy: If I only sampled and observed 6% of the total flight regieme of a given aerospace vehicle before I designed a control system and control scheme to fly that vehicle, I can guarantee you that there will be an error in my system design that will cause the vehicle to crash at some point. That is because I have only designed-to (made up my mind about) 6% of the total reality that this vehicle could experience throughout its flight regieme. The reality of the other 94% is never taken into consideration. The chances that my 6% design could survive 94% unknown circumstances is ridiculously low. Can you see the parallel between this and our human condition?

So what if we were to playfully refer to "Dark Energy" as "The Force"? "Use the Force, Luke!" And you know what? This is really not at all very far from the reality of our situation. And each of us physical beings can tap into that Force of Dark Energy. Some may call it the Prime Temporal Point. There are lots of names for it....but the evidence has been there, and it is now being validated scientifically...

RainmanTime
 
Re: EVIDENCE of the divine...

evidence of "the divine" stares you right in the face...existance
Click to expand...
Rho: Our existence is in no way evidence of "the divine". You assume that the divine exists, while there is no evidence for it. I can think of a million other reasons why we exist:

We originate from a Giant Banana and I have evidence: existence!


I agree.
Click to expand...
Ray: I don't understand how you, with your scientific background, can agree. Where is the evidence? This is, at best, a theory. An unproven theory, since there is no evidence.


Consider that we are now finding, and proving with scientific measurements, that there is a VAST, unseen source of energy in our universe.
Click to expand...
Well, I guess you could call dark matter "divine" but we could also call it "roel" or "giant banana". Why do people insist on calling the unknown "divine" or "god".

There are lots of names for it....but the evidence has been there, and it is now being validated scientifically...
Click to expand...
I rest my case /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif There is something which you call "divine" for no apparent reason and then you say it's being scientifically validated now. That's the worst example of science I've seen since kindergarten.

I bet that we discover timetravel BEFORE we find evidence of "the divine".


Roel
 
Re: EVIDENCE of the divine...

logic is all the evidence you need...
your scientific method thinking is blinding what obviously is, science will never disprove god (as hard as its trying), the deeper we go in every field of science leads us to believe more and more in the evidence of the divine.
every field of science eventually leads to everything is connected one way or another to one source. god.


Let me give you an example. I show you a computer and ask you to make your best choice as to how it came into being:

1.Designed and put together by intelligent human beings.
2.Random computer parts were put into a large box and the parts soldered randomly by spraying molten lead into the box as it was rotated. This process was continued many times until the computer happened to be produced.
 
Re: EVIDENCE of the divine...

logic is all the evidence you need...
Click to expand...

Funny you should say that... because:


science will never disprove god (as hard as its trying)
Click to expand...
My logic tells me that god does not exist. Logic is the only evidence I need, so my conclusion would be: god does not exist! Of course this is plain bullshit, since I can't prove god doesn't exist as much as you can't prove he does.

Et voilá!


Let me give you an example.
Click to expand...
No. Let me give you an example.

Let's assume that god does exist. How do you think he came into being?

1. He appeared out of the blue. Hey he's god you know!
2. Uhm, you shouldn't want to know everything.


Roel /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
Re: EVIDENCE of the divine...

again your scientific method try's to quantify god hahah

we will get no where..

agree to disagree?
 
Re: EVIDENCE of the divine...

again your scientific method try's to quantify god hahah

we will get no where..

agree to disagree?
Click to expand...


Actually I was using YOUR method if you hadn't noticed. Why should it be possible for god to appear out of the blue, surely there was something before god?

I fear we're going into an endless discussion as well. So I agree to disagree /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Roel
 
Re: EVIDENCE of the divine...

Roel, here is something of "divine nature".

No one can dispute the fact that the Bible is the most amazing book ever to be written. It has been translated into more languages, it has been read more times, and it has more copies in print than any other book in the history of mankind. No other book has touched as many lives, no other work of history or science has remained relevant for such a tremendous length of time. And I say relevant, because no one has ever proven it a fake. EVER! So many people claim and claim that it is a myth, yet no one can even put a dent in it. Moses wrote the Pentateuch nearly 3500 years ago. Scientific evidence is surfacing today that endorses the claims made in the Bible.

The point is, the Bible was "divinely inspired". No human has ever written a book that has even come close to achieving one mere percent of the success the Bible has. That's a fact! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Let me add the "Bible Code" that unlocks a deeper symbolic and spiritual meaning behind the literal words of the text, was placed there by a supernatural act, UNBEKNOWN TO THE MEN WHO ACTUALLY PENNED THE TEXT.
 
Re: EVIDENCE of the divine...

No one can dispute the fact that the Bible is the most amazing book ever to be written.
Click to expand...

Why not? Personally I think it's a worthless piece of junk. It's at its best a asorted collection of fairytales, myths and historical events. It contains historical flaws and contradictions. The only thing I find amazing about the bible is the fact that so many people live by its word. Sure it's the best selling book ever, but that does not mean I have to like it. Celine Dion is said to be the best selling artist, but I sure in hell ain't playing her music all day /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Roel
 
Re: EVIDENCE of the divine...

Hi Roel,

I don't understand how you, with your scientific background, can agree.
Click to expand...
Perhaps the source of disagreement lies more in the definition of "divine" than it does anything else? If you are terribly scarred by discussions of a classical view of God, then perhaps we simply need to view "divine" as being a higher level system to our 3x3 Matrix Universe of Massive SpaceTime? Try to erase the connotations you ascribe to God from tired religious metaphors and teachings, and instead view it, scientifically, as a SYSTEM that is at the next highest level of context from the SYSTEM that we are immersed in.

As to why I agree: Something I have been trying to get across to you, Roel, is the concept of balance between extremes. ALL systems within our universe exhibit such balance, for it is the very basis of Conservation of Energy and Momentum laws. Therefore, all of this evidence points to balance in how we develop beliefs as being not only reasonable, but required for us to evolve. Blind faith in a God that is going to take care of everything is stupid. Blind faith in science, such that one always demands proof before one can accept the possibility of something being true, is just as stupid. They are both extremist views, and the universe does not operate well at such extremes. The "right answer" is a balance between the two. That is the path that I take. I accept, and utilize, principles of BOTH science and spirituality, because I see them as two complementary (balancing) means to achieve the same result. If you cling to only science, Roel, and completely reject spirituality, I am afraid that you are just as bad as people who reject science and cling to only the "wisdom" of their chosen religion. Extremism, in ALL its forms, is on its way out.

Why do people insist on calling the unknown "divine" or "god".
Click to expand...
Again, it is the meaning behind the word that matters. Please give me your feedback on viewing "divine" as being nothing more than a higher level of context beyond the universe we live in. What if this was how we viewed "divine"? Would it not make sense, especially within the context of how we see natural laws structured in our universe (i.e. our universe is a giant "system of systems")?

There is something which you call "divine" for no apparent reason and then you say it's being scientifically validated now. That's the worst example of science I've seen since kindergarten.
Click to expand...
The reason is not apparant to you because you have not yet accepted the fact that our universe acts in a manner to balance extremes. Ignoring "divine" and continuing my "higher level system context"... I KNOW there is a higher-level system context to what we perceive as our universe. The reason I know is because ALL EVIDENCE from our scientific inquiries tells us that "stuff" is self-similar, fractally-organized systems embedded within larger systems. Can you point to ANY evidence that would suggest this is not true? You cannot. All things are connected, and any one thing you point to is a "subsystem" of some larger system. And so, scientifically, if I ponder our entire universe as a whole, the evidence suggests that there is a higher-level context (an "external system") which actually controls and affects the system of our universe. Call it divine? If you must.... I just like the higher level system view.

Kindergarten science? C'mon Roel! I know you better than that!
The concepts I am describing above are well-founded in systems engineering. And the raw facts are that scientific inquiry has been, and continues, to validate the DEEPER scientific meanings inherent in the material from many religious and mystic traditions. As I mentioned before with respect to Dark Energy... the dogmatic scientists of even 10 years ago would have said "there is NO evidence for any sort of mysterious force that controls the universe." And those same scientists are now beginning to change their tune. Why? EVIDENCE!

You really might want to open your horizons, Roel. I understand your aversion to the "old stories" of religions and how they tried to control people. Anyone with a scientific view of things WOULD have such an aversion. Hell, that is the same aversion that caused me to renounce my Catholic faith. But that does NOT mean that ALL of the material from any given faith is hogwash. As I have also said before: The first book of Genesis is actually a treatise on advanced physics, once you clear away the "storybook" elements.

RainmanTime
 
Re: EVIDENCE of the divine...

God is housed in a computer at this day level.

So in-part, what we are perceiving as God, is modulated by other agencies.

Not this government, but other realms.

What is to say that in later time, since more than likely people are parts of the God manufacturing structure, that God does not move his presence to another office?
 
Re: EVIDENCE of the divine...

Ignoring "divine" and continuing my "higher level system context"... I KNOW there is a higher-level system context to what we perceive as our universe. The reason I know is because ALL EVIDENCE from our scientific inquiries tells us that "stuff" is self-similar, fractally-organized systems embedded within larger systems.
Click to expand...
Hey Ray, I do agree with you on this but I see where Roel is coming from too. I think some of the posts above are refering to an all mighty power that has a direct bearing on our souls existance. I can't dispute that there very well may be a greater system than the ones we perceive and I think my existance is a subsystem of that system and would not be possible without that system. However, I tend to disagree with the notion that any part of a greater system is going to judge me once I have died and I don't see why it should be refered to as devine. If a greater system exists then I tend to believe it is balanced but I doubt it would be balanced by an ultimate "good" and an ultimate "bad", that's just to simple... and I know for sure it would not offer 13 virgins (or whatever that is) /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
Re: EVIDENCE of the divine...

I've been reading "Conversations with God" by Neale Donald Walsch. The "God" in his book compared spirituality with religion. In spirituality, critical thinking is encouraged as you constantly discover Who You Are and Who You Want To Be. Change is a part of this equation.

With religion, there is a belief in fundamental, unchanging truths. What is required is the acceptance of long established beliefs. Critical thinking is *NOT* desired because the religion can not survive if people are always coming up with new truths that may conflict with what has always been believed. The idea is -- These truths have been found, these were found by holy men a long time ago, so just accept these and end your search, anything else is merely the work of the devil.

While there are certainly some spiritual gems in the Bible, I too shudder about those worshipping this manmade golden idol they've made out of it.
 
Re: EVIDENCE of the divine...

Perhaps the source of disagreement lies more in the definition of "divine" than it does anything else?
Click to expand...
Well, perhaps. Let me put it this way: I don't think a higher form of intelligence responsible for our existence.


As to why I agree: Something I have been trying to get across to you, Roel, is the concept of balance between extremes.
Click to expand...
I understand what you're trying to get across. I was surprised by the fact that you agreed that there's evidence for "the divine", while there isn't. Now again, I'm not saying science is capable of explaining everything. I just don't see why we have to explain the unknown by calling it god, or the divine.


Blind faith in science, such that one always demands proof before one can accept the possibility of something being true, is just as stupid.
Click to expand...
When you put it that way: yes. But to me there is no reason to believe that there is such thing as a god or any other form of higher intelligence. I've never seen, heard of felt anything that would suggest its existence. It's not my "blind faith in science" that keeps me from believing. I can accept the possibility of something being true without having any evidence, but in my opinion the next step should always be finding evidence to confirm that it actually is true.


If you cling to only science, Roel, and completely reject spirituality, I am afraid that you are just as bad as people who reject science and cling to only the "wisdom" of their chosen religion.
Click to expand...
I don't "cling" to science at all, nor do I really reject spirituality. I can just as easily "reject" a scientific fact when I think the reasoning or evidence is insufficient. And that is precisely what I think is the case with most, if not all, religions.


Again, it is the meaning behind the word that matters.
Click to expand...
The meaning of the word "divine" is clear. There's hardly any room for misinterpretation of the word as it has only one meaning. What you are doing is giving the word a whole different meaning.


The reason is not apparant to you because you have not yet accepted the fact that our universe acts in a manner to balance extremes.
Click to expand...

You were missing my point. Like I already said, the word "divine" has a certain meaning. You just took "divine" out of its own context and claimed that it's scientifically being validated. So when you ask...

Can you point to ANY evidence that would suggest this is not true? You cannot.
Click to expand...
Indeed, I cannot. But what you've just described has nothing to do with the divine.


Kindergarten science? C'mon Roel! I know you better than that!
Click to expand...
It was not meant as an insult /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif I always consider you to be more knowledgeable than myself."

the dogmatic scientists of even 10 years ago would have said "there is NO evidence for any sort of mysterious force that controls the universe." And those same scientists are now beginning to change their tune. Why? EVIDENCE!
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but I think what's important here is the way we define this "mysterious force that controls the universe". It more or less implies that there's an intelligent force at hand and I don't think that's what most scientists found evidence for. Or do you think we can expect "Q" paying us a visit any time soon?



You really might want to open your horizons, Roel.
Click to expand...
I don't think that will be necessary. I'm probably more openminded than you might suspect. However, I do look at things from a more reserved perspective or rather from a distance. I'm interested in religions and spirituality in the same way I'm interested in crop circles and ufo's.


The first book of Genesis is actually a treatise on advanced physics, once you clear away the "storybook" elements.
Click to expand...
I'll take your word for it. It still contains flaws and contradictions though



Roel
 
Re: EVIDENCE of the divine...

I'll take your word for it. It still contains flaws and contradictions though
Click to expand...
not to mention, down right lies and\or misunderstandings. Regardless, whatever gets one through the day, as long as it's positive, is ok with me but I tend to side with you, Roel, on this one. I simply need more proof. If I ever did have the chance to travel back in time, I'd do two things. I'd go and see what the real deal was with Jesus and I'd choke hitler to death in his crib.
 
Back
Top