JamesG

in that sense yes I suppose it is possible lol. But lets examine the electrons in my body change their state and lets see if they electrons in your body do the same .

I think that is entirely possible black cat. Interestingly enough I believe there are certain species of tape worms that transmit memories to its offspring however rudimentary that might actually be. Its been about 8 years since I was last in biology so someone help me here. I think it would not be that much of a stretch if we consider that memories are just a function of our biology that it could be transmitted down the genetic line however vague or acute it really is.

thanks for the input so far and my wife and I just saw cloud atlas last night. In so many words I think that sums up parts of my thinking with a bit more of a Buddhist lean see the above post by Deva.

oh I don't doubt the interesting bits of it I think I managed to get to page 2 or 3 before I posted here. it just occurred to me half way through reading that none of this has to do with god whatsoever except for the fact that it is a proof that his idea of god is only a man made concept. maybe I should just jump back over to that thread and see how its going.

a better question for you does my hair have an ego?

My particular arragangement of atoms is the universe personified. No? No because you are not the universe you are a portion of the universe. We are talking about the universe as a whole not the individual parts in it. If you want me to grant you that much then fine a less than microscopically small portion of the universe has an ego but the entirety of the universe as a whole does not. if that is the case you are trying to argue then the universe is also a virus parasite etc. etc. so if god is the universe it cant be a perfect being because you would have to include the vast and cruel realities of a horribly imperfect system bound to fail.

End3 I think we get what your trying to say and there is no real need to back it up a step I think what you are doing is applying words like "Relationship" and "ego" to make it fit in with your idea of what the universe should be. You are in essence personifying the universe to suit your needs. A rock has no more of an ego than the sun. Can certain conscious entities possess an ego sure. Also to say that the universe is striving to survive is a bit of a stretch as our best look into the future is that of a cold death where particles become so far apart they can no longer reach each other and everything just essentially stops/dies i.e. no more stars. So the universe is striving for its end at this point. I would also have to agree with earlier posts pointing out the fact that the old testament and the new testament do not support you in a god is the universe idea. I think you are as others pointed out leaning towards a pantheistic belief set or that of a deist or agnostic belief set. You are really leaving the realm of Christianity at this point. And lets just call god God and the universe the universe no sense applying labels to things where they don't belong.

love loaded titles but ill get to the point. We all believe in something whether its the universe popping from virtual particles coalescing into a point so dense that a universe explodes into existence or that a magical sky fairy from another dimension created an extremely vast and expansive universe to make it a home for a small tiny group of people on a rock in the middle of nowhere. Point is we all believe something. After some delving into buddhism during my agnostic years. I have slowly taken bits of that and bits of science to form my own belief. I believe in an atheistic point of view but I like to put a poetic twist on it so believers can understand where I am coming from better after all no good idea gains ground with out great marketing <---- case in point. I like the idea of reincarnation but I think the Buddhist view on it focus to much on the individual. If we look at the universe from a non quantum perspective matter is neither created nor destroyed it merely transfers from one form to another. So in that perspective on things how do we view our identity what happens to us after death? well I would like to postulate that life is neither created nor destroyed but merely rolls on to the next. yes I get the loop holes and the fallacies of said statement its just meant to be catchy. My idea comes from DNA when we look at our DNA there is tons of junk in there that we simply do not use. All of this is carried over from our ancestors left over bits here and there. The point being is when you die your information is carried on via your offspring the whole of humanity is just one giant walking talking databank of information rolled over from past lives. we carry on through the new generations after us. That is our reincarnation not of the individual but of the ancestrial line. When we are born we inherit the lives of our ancestors before us and we live on through the dna we transmit to those after us. Death at this point is just the natural progression of our species there is nothing supernatural about it or mythological it is just another process of life. Of course through natural selection there are dead ends in the DNA strain but even so if we trace things back far enough whether its plants lobsters or humans we all carry the same original dna and to that extent we are just extensions of our common ancestors. If we are to look at ourselves as not individuals in that regard but as a collective whole then we to live on. Of course this is just a rough idea of it all please feel free to add or subtract from my statements I think its an idea worth evolving. I don't claim to know everything I just have ideas bouncing around in this gray matter I call a brain. I don't think this as my idea so much as just thoughts on a collection of information. If I am totally out of bounds feel free to correct any statements in which I have made. As I am sure there are many smart individuals on this board who can improve upon any ideas I present.

Just looked up gematria and I just shook my head lol. reminds me of the people who would decode the bible for prophesy. I mean honestly they are taking a man made language assigning their own numerical system to it and then connecting the dots. Same ..... different day.

Hi a bit new to the site and to the forums so bear with me. I recently saw a post from a proud Jew regarding how mathematics proves the existence of god. In the post he gave his detailed mathematical proof and debate ensues over the definitions of infinity and other philosophical concepts regarding said infinity. God was never defined except as the infinite. To which I have heard this argument many times before. However, I find this whole topic interesting in the fact that we can find the origins in religion from this argument. The attempt to prove god by creating an infinite from an equation that you thought of out of your mind only proofs that you can create said concepts yourself. What it does is prove that your idea of god is a self delusion created from yourself. Lets be honest if god were real would he need a hypothetical equation proving a hypothetical number? After all we are not proving god in these types of discussions we are proving a hypothetical number. It is no more real than the thoughts in my head. It proves nothing really. In fact if we look at the whole of math it would never prove god because if god is un measureable then math has no business proving it as lets face it math is the school of counting and measuring. If we are to talk about space and time as the infinite in this regard all we are doing in math is measuring the rate of its expanse not the size and scope of it. Even still if we could prove that the universe is completely and utterly infinite with no end in sight then that is all we have done. It does not and will not ever prove god. The only business math has in proving a god's existence is in the measurement of said god. If god is unmeasurable then why are we using math? I got an answer because your god is theoretical and not real. I am sure with my limited lack of knowledge and insight there are probably many errors in my argument however I feel that the concept is there. Whack away if you will because I am growing weary of these asinine math proves god debates.