Who's Our Creater?

[Lycorth]

Hey, FNA

 

My conviction that there is a Creator(s)? The existence of the universe. Something simply cannot come from nothing, which of course leads to you asking me then where did the Creator(s) come from?

 

To me, I can think of two possible explanations. There is the one I had in my Xian days, which goes that God the Creator(s) are in fact beings which exists apart from the laws of physics and science that they made, and therefore it is logical they may not have needed to be themselves created in the first place. That one is interesting, but I tend to entertain also a second possibility, that being that, as I said at least once, that the Creator(s) of the universe are part of a greater race of beings, whether mortal or immortal, and had Creators of their own. That seems, at least now, more logical to me, though I can't of course say one way or the other.

 

And why can't a Creator survive the Big Bang? Certainly any Creator(s) must've had a system in place of surviving the blast, assuming any Creator(s) would be vulnerable to it in the first place.

 

If there is no Creator(s), from whence came the necessary molecules and gasses that formed the universe? To me, it makes more sense to posit an infinite line of Creators than assume the building blocks of the universe were always there, especially if nothing can exist before the Big Bang, as you posited.

[pandora]

Pandora - (you responded as I was typing, LOL)

Thank you. Yes I do understand what you're saying.

 

Statistics are like watching flies fuck. Boring as hell.

I don't think I put it in this thread, but somewhere o nthis site I typed up a long thing about arguing probability backwards as a fallacy.

 

Some religious people think that because they're here despite the odds against it,

odds that grow larger and larger against your existence the further back in time you go,

it's somehow proof of a god. This is pure nonsense of course, because clearly, you ARE here.

It's like winning the lottery. Imagine a lottery winner standing there with the giant novelty check and accurately statting that the odds against him winning this lottery were 50 million to one.

So far he's right. But then imagine him saying that because the odds were so against him winning, that he did not in fact win - and arriving at this conclusion AFTER winning.

 

Five thousand years ago, imagine the odds against my birth in 1969.

Longer ago than that, the odds against me were even higher.

More recently than that, my odds get better.

Why? Because each successive ancestor had to meet and have sex with each other ancestor until their children and their children's children and so on and so forth would meet and likewise have sex at just the right time, and that ONE sperm out of millions is the one that fertilizes that egg at just the right time to produce the necessary genome to BE one of my ancestors in the chain of ancestors leading to my birth. If you take even ONE of my ancestors out of the equasion, I am never born. And that includes taking ANY of my most distant ancestors out, including proto-humans, the primates that evolved into humans, the lemur like mammals they evolved from, and back and back to the first life on Earth. Just to make little old me. Ain't I special? LOL

 

This illustrates the difference between highly improbable and impossible.

70 million years ago, my existence was extremely unlikely, but yet here I am.

My existence was ALWAYS highly improbable, even when my own parents were living but had not yet met. (Though more likely than 70 million years ago). But clearly, since I exist, it was never impossible.

 

Arguing probability backwards is a fallacy as demonstrated above.

A lot of people make the same mistake when talking aout the Big Bang.

But going "backwards" is precisely how we have to approach it, since it happened in the past.

We just have to be careful not to apply the results of what happened after it to the properties of HOW it happened, which do not necessarilly have anything to do with what came next.

 

It seems to me that the laws that exist would just be replaced by other laws (like you said, they are dependent on the circusmstances surrounding the BB) that may or may not have garnered intelligent life.

 

The laws of physics are indeed laws, or the universe wouldn't work.

Intelligent life is, I think, inevitable. Life almost certainly is.

 

 

Right right.... I know all this. But the question I am asking is what if the set of laws that we observe are only specific to a particular configuration at the time of the Big Bang? Because the BB happened in X way, we got Y laws... and if it had happened in Y way, we would have gotten a totally different set of natural laws, so all of our speculation on "if this had happened, everything would have collapsed millions of years ago" would be somewhat in vain. I hope I am making sense... maybe this was just a pipe dream I had (literally LOL), but perhaps you can see what I am saying.

[Friendly neighborhood atheist]

If there is no Creator(s), from whence came the necessary molecules and gasses that formed the universe? To me, it makes more sense to posit an infinite line of Creators than assume the building blocks of the universe were always there, especially if nothing can exist before the Big Bang, as you posited.

 

Wolfheart; please go back to page one of this post and read my first reply in this thread.

It's rather long but it describes how the universe came to be it's current form wihtout the need for any god/s to explain it.

 

Your assertion of a Creator/s being necessary to explain the universe is something that I know to be false, but any attempt to explain to you why it's false could cause you to dig your heels in,

think I'm trying to win an argument more than to inform, or that I'm not a nice guy.

Truthfully, what's so different from what you're saying than what the early Hebrews said?

There's a magical mystical creator, at least one, somewhere, that brought EVERYTHING into existence as a conscious decision.

Honestly, I'm kinda surprised that I'm back to dealing with this assumption here on THIS board that there is a creator/s as a sentient force directing the creation of the universe.

WHY?? Why is it so hard to understand that the universe could come about and evolved on it's own, without the need to intorduce an unnecessary factor into the equasion (i.e. "god")?

 

God the Creator(s) are in fact beings which exists apart from the laws of physics and science that they made, and therefore it is logical they may not have needed to be themselves created in the first place.

 

The universe is not a thing, it is the set of all things - all that exists.

If there WERE a "God" or sentient creator to the universe, such a creator would exist, and therefore be part of the master set of all things that exist. Such an entiry could not be "separate and apart" from the universe, and can not exist independant of it.

You can not write the laws of physics and then be immune to them, somehow above them.

 

A mortal creator, as you suggested, having the property of mortality, strongly suggests a beginning and and end to their existence. As such, it is highly likely that they evolved as part of another system somewhere prior to our universe being created by them, correct?

Well, if that's the case, then you have to make the assumption (then support it) that such a system of creation that OUR creators come from had a dynamic that lead to those creators, a complex system indeed, like that of our own universe (or at least solar system).

But if our creators were created, who created our creators? And who created them who created our creators? And on and on for infinity.

 

Ah!! INFINITY!! Now we're getting somewhere. If you get to go back to infinity to explain the origins of our supposed creators, why not skip all those steps and assumptions and just say our universe, in some form, always existed? The other direction is to say that our creators are immortal beings, or at least have an infinite ancestry, and now you're half a step away from sounding like a christian again.

 

No offense meant beyond the obvious here Wolfheart, but claiming creators in my presence will set off the bullshit alarm every time.

[BuddhistCommunist]

FNA greetings,

 

I would like to bring up the fact that we have a very limited understanding of the universe. We only know what we can immediately learn. our perception is really quite limited. a person may be the greatest at elementary level math and know nothing about calculus, (bad example but hopefully you see my point). The truth is you do not know if we are created, none of us do. I was a Christian, but all my life as a christian, I was a Theistic Evolutionist. When I was 3yo I believed the dinosaurs died 65 million years ago when a huge asteroid collided with the earth (no joke). I've always believed in Evolution, but I am not so sure about a creator anymore. Just because one has not experienced the paranormal, doesn't mean it is not real. there is too much unexplained in the universe to take anyones word for anything. The true way is finding the anwer yourself.

 

peace,

BC

[NotBlinded]

Then........there are the people like me that think this "Creator" is a natural part of everything. Bottom-up of natural processes as Antlerman says, yet instilled with a never-ending creation.

 

Every heard of Oscam's Razor NB?

 

Why is it that I feel like I'm always breaking your balls? Sorry.

Actually, it's Occam's Razor and yes, I have and I was wondering why I didn't have any balls!

 

This never-ending creation is life itself. I'm not adding anything to it. You and I observe the same things and we both can say that things are alive. There is some force/s that keeps life going and these are the natural laws. My understanding is just a unifying thought for me. Symbiosis is a good way to look at it.

 

Well, I see I was also mistaken. Thanks Eponymic!

 

The universe is not a thing, it is the set of all things - all that exists.

If there WERE a "God" or sentient creator to the universe, such a creator would exist, and therefore be part of the master set of all things that exist. Such an entiry could not be "separate and apart" from the universe, and can not exist independant of it.

You can not write the laws of physics and then be immune to them, somehow above them.

Hey, that's where I live.

[Antlerman]

Just because one has not experienced the paranormal, doesn't mean it is not real. there is too much unexplained in the universe to take anyones word for anything. The true way is finding the anwer yourself.

 

peace,

BC

BC, I know this question wasn't directed to me, but if I may ask a question? Do you feel the scientific method is on equal footing with mysticism as far as finding explanations for the as of yet unexplained? If so, I question this because our knowledge prior the advent of the modern scientific method was highly speculative and we really couldn't get past the inexplicable. The advances we all enjoy in every aspect of our lives today is a result of moving beyond subjective speculation (or divine revelation), into something that was useful in the pursuit of the advance of knowledge with higher degrees of certainty.

 

I don't know if you mean it the way I've heard so many times in the past that, "we can't really know something with absolute certainty, so anything really is possible." Like I tell me fundamentalist son, "It's all about degrees of certainty. We can never know everything, but belief in mystical super-beings has no support outside human mythology. In the world of the natural, it is possible of course, but so highly improbably as to be of little value in any consideration or meaningful discussion about the nature of the universe. However, questions of God or super-beings are valuable topics in a discussion of human psychology and sociology, just not in science." That’s how I respond to his bringing up issues of the yet unexplained.

 

To date, natural explainations have provided answers to pretty much every unexplained mystery so far, why should we think otherwise for tomorrow to explain, what we today are seeing as paranomal?

[Friendly neighborhood atheist]

Antlerman said:

To date, natural explainations have provided answers to pretty much every unexplained mystery so far, why should we think otherwise for tomorrow to explain, what we today are seeing as paranomal?

 

Bingo.

[Antlerman]

I'm just sitting here puzzling over everything and this question came to mind: Why do the gods have to exist as either natural and/or supernatural? Why can't they simply exist as real beings within human mythology? What compels people to try to justify mythology as plausible?

[NotBlinded]

I'd like to ask a question. Can we claim that space exists? If space is the absence of things, it seems only things actually exist. Well, they must exist in something. Space then can be understood as no-thing or the formless. Then things, or forms, are formed from this no-thing, or the formless.

 

All we can ever study is the forms that exist in the universe. Even with dark matter figured in, most of the universe is still a mystery.

 

Cosmologists like to talk about the amount of matter in the universe in terms of a parameter called Omega. Omega is defined so that a closed universe - a universe that is massive enough that it eventually collapses back onto itself - has Omega larger than 1; an `open' universe, one that expands outwards forever, has Omega less than 1; and a `flat' universe, perfectly balanced between the two, has Omega = 1.

 

The amount of visible matter in the universe is about Omega = 0.05; not very much at all. Theoreticians like to believe that for the Universe, the total of all of the mass is Omega = 1; this would mean that dark matter makes up the other Omega = 0.95 - 95% of the universe would be dark matter! More realistically, there isn't much evidence for Omega being larger than about 0.4; this would make the amount of dark matter be Omega = 0.35.

 

Even so, that means that 88% of our universe is a complete mystery.

Cosmology is the study of the evolution of the Universe.

 

Can we ever hope to study the formless or the no-thing or can we accept that it is not possible to know this and accept that it is there? All of our studies are directed on the forms by science but they cannot ever hope to study something that is no-thing. This is where spirituality comes in, IMO. I am not satisfied any longer denying this no-thing in which things exist. I am more balanced, or in the middle of the continum, when I admit that there are polar opposites...forms and the formless.

[Friendly neighborhood atheist]

Um, no.

I respectfully reject just about everything you just typed NB.

"Space" is not entirely a "nothing".

It may be an absolute vacuum in some places, but it's part of dimentional reality.

Do you have an understanding of the concept long ago termed "the fabric of space-time"?

Space is a necessary component of that concept.

In fact, the distance bewtween massive objects ("space") makes time possible.

Speed is nothing more than a measurement of distance relative to time.

Time is nothing more than a measurement of of distance relative to speed.

It's all interconnected, and no, that's not evidecne for a god either.

 

You keep trying to justify belief in a formless existence in which you're still you on some level and sentient, unless I'm reading you wrong. The universe doesn't care if you're satisfied or not, anymore than it cares if I am. No special conditions are fabricated to soothe your existential angst.

 

This is the ONE place where the ancient Hebrews got it right when they put words into God's mouth:

"I AM WHAT AM".

Aside from the shitty grammar, this quote attributed to almighty God Himself (such as it is)

captures the entire scope of reality: It is what it is.

Arguing over WHAT it is leads to assumptions, most of them in error.

[Antlerman]

All of our studies are directed on the forms by science but they cannot ever hope to study something that is no-thing. This is where spirituality comes in, IMO. I am not satisfied any longer denying this no-thing in which things exist. I am more balanced, or in the middle of the continum, when I admit that there are polar opposites...forms and the formless.

Are you saying that when you feel science can't explain something, "this is where spirituality comes in?" Are you saying that you're frustration in comprehending the big mystery of existence in a rational manner is what leads you to put a spiritual face on the unknown? I am really hoping to get to an understanding of how you see spirituality in relation to all this.

 

For me, I also strive for the middle ground of rational thought and spiritual experience. But my stubborn, and justifiable resistance to look to the "inexplicable" around me as evidence to indicate a legitimate spiritual realm, is setting myself up for failure. It is no different than the "God of the Gaps" of fundamentalist Christianity, if that is what I am hearing correctly here.

 

How I would achieve the middle ground, if I ultimately feel so compelled, would be to simply acknowledge that against all reason I choose to believe for the sake of the experience of it. It is pure faith and nothing more. Pure faith does not need justification. Does someone have to justify their feelings? Why do we have to justify a belief in a mythology then? Is it wrong to just believe against reason for the sake of experience? Is enjoying the taste of a grapefruit wrong? Does it need validation?

[NotBlinded]

Um, no.

I respectfully reject just about everything you just typed NB.

"Space" is not entirely a "nothing".

It may be an absolute vacuum in some places, but it's part of dimentional reality.

Do you have an understanding of the concept long ago termed "the fabric of space-time"?

Space is a necessary component of that concept.

In fact, the distance bewtween massive objects ("space") makes time possible.

Speed is nothing more than a measurement of distance relative to time.

Time is nothing more than a measurement of of distance relative to speed.

It's all interconnected, and no, that's not evidecne for a god either.

 

You keep trying to justify belief in a formless existence in which you're still you on some level and sentient, unless I'm reading you wrong. The universe doesn't care if you're satisfied or not, anymore than it cares if I am. No special conditions are fabricated to soothe your existential angst.

 

This is the ONE place where the ancient Hebrews got it right when they put words into God's mouth:

"I AM WHAT AM".

Aside from the shitty grammar, this quote attributed to almighty God Himself (such as it is)

captures the entire scope of reality: It is what it is.

Arguing over WHAT it is leads to assumptions, most of them in error.

 

I'll leave you alone now because I think you have misread me for the most part and that is probably because of the way, or the words, I chose. Enjoy...

[NotBlinded]

All of our studies are directed on the forms by science but they cannot ever hope to study something that is no-thing. This is where spirituality comes in, IMO. I am not satisfied any longer denying this no-thing in which things exist. I am more balanced, or in the middle of the continum, when I admit that there are polar opposites...forms and the formless.

Are you saying that when you feel science can't explain something, "this is where spirituality comes in?" Are you saying that you're frustration in comprehending the big mystery of existence in a rational manner is what leads you to put a spiritual face on the unknown? I am really hoping to get to an understanding of how you see spirituality in relation to all this.

 

For me, I also strive for the middle ground of rational thought and spiritual experience. But my stubborn, and justifiable resistance to look to the "inexplicable" around me as evidence to indicate a legitimate spiritual realm, is setting myself up for failure. It is no different than the "God of the Gaps" of fundamentalist Christianity, if that is what I am hearing correctly here.

 

How I would achieve the middle ground, if I ultimately feel so compelled, would be to simply acknowledge that against all reason I choose to believe for the sake of the experience of it. It is pure faith and nothing more. Pure faith does not need justification. Does someone have to justify their feelings? Why do we have to justify a belief in a mythology then? Is it wrong to just believe against reason for the sake of experience? Is enjoying the taste of a grapefruit wrong? Does it need validation?

I'm really going to have to give up now. I am not putting a god in the gaps...I am noticing an essence that is already in the gaps and in everything. I am tired of being misunderstood and when I try to explain more and I still get no where. You can look at me as an idiot if you wish and that's okay. I give up...

[Friendly neighborhood atheist]

NB,

I don't want our discussions to end badly, the LAST thing I want here is to be forever at odds with established board regulars.

 

If I'm misreading you, please explain - I mean it.

If I've misunderstood I'll apologize with all due humility.

 

Let me be absolutely blunt in the interests of honesty, which I always feel is the best policy.

 

You're a bit of a mystic in my eyes.

You claim belief in a formless continuation of yourself after death,

due to "life energy" - an energy you've tried to describe as always having been there and always will be, as part of the natural universe.

 

Your comments and explanations of your comments are more and more supernatural sounding to me, you're coming off as a person with supernatural or at least paranormal beliefs that strike me as based in the same hopeful, fearful, comfort-seeking self-delusion that christians, jews, and muslims get theirs from. (I'm being honest now, about how your words make me perceive you).

And yet, all these views are based on just as much (or just as little) factual understanding of the universe and it's physical properties as any other believer in such things of any flavor.

 

I don't know you personally, but thusfar your self-described "spirituality" is the ONLY thing about you with which I take issue - and respectful issue at that. I'm not calling you names, I'm openly questioning and criticizing your assertions (or suggestions) on this ONE subject.

Your personality in general, what I've seen of it, is of a cool person I'd like to call a friend, at least on this board. I sense I've offended you, you the person. I'm sorry about that.

But your explanations and proposals about spirit realms and after death life energy formless continuation offends me too, in as much as it keeps setting off the bullshit alarm (it's a loud alarm) and it's not consistent with what I know (notice I didn't say "believe").

 

Perhaps I could say it offends "what I understand".

I am not all-knowing, no one and nothing is. But no two facts may be in contradiction.

One or both must be in error. This is an axiom of logic.

Facts that I DO know and understand are being contradicted by your proposals,

and I'm only exploring these contradictions with you in public, my intention is not to offend.

I don't want you to "leave me alone", I hope you don't want me to just go away and leave you alone either. We're here to exchange thoughts with eachother, not keep them from eachother.

There's going to be disagreement, even negative emotions from time to time,

but without exposure to the other, our own views go untested and unchallenged.

 

Peace? Friends? -Greg FNA

[Antlerman]

I'm really going to have to give up now. I am not putting a god in the gaps...I am noticing an essence that is already in the gaps and in everything. I am tired of being misunderstood and when I try to explain more and I still get no where. You can look at me as an idiot if you wish and that's okay. I give up...

I am not looking at you as an idiot. Never have. Quite the contrary. I'm trying to get clarification of how you see things, because I keep getting a knee-jerk reaction to what I seem to be hearing. I'm asking for myself. Are you willing to help me understand?

[NotBlinded]

Of course I don't want you to go away Greg. I just tire of being accussed of the same things the fundamentalists are.

 

I understand the logic of what you said about contradictions, but I also understand that sometimes there are other variables that will make the contradiction a paradox.

[Friendly neighborhood atheist]

Of course I don't want you to go away Greg. I just tire of being accussed of the same things the fundamentalists are.

 

I understand the logic of what you said about contradictions, but I also understand that sometimes there are other variables that will make the contradiction a paradox.

 

This may not be the best time to say this, but HUH? (smiling as I type)

Now that's a statement that needs some 'splainin Lucy! LOL

Please - do give me an example of what you mean, or phrase it differerntly so that I might understand your intent better.

But varibles that make a contraiction a paradox, now that's a face-value statement that describes changing the nature of the condition by adding a variable. This happens all the time, equasions's results are changed every time a new factor is intorduced...

but if the original condition was "contradiction", I'm wondering what "variable" will change that contradiction into a "paradox". (?)

[Antlerman]

I should add one other thing. I am always looking to further my understanding and appreciation of how others view things. I have to push back at times to test a thing to see if it can have meaning for me. This forum is my process as well as others. I challenged OM all over the place and a great deal of good things came out of it for me as part of that process.

 

Never... do I want to insult you and I sincerely apologize if I have inadvertently hurt you. This is not about respect versus disrespect. I already respect you a great deal. I'm challenging you a little and that’s all.

 

Friends??

[Vixentrox]

I've read a lot of these forums.Many of us don't believe in Christianity,ISLAM,Hinduism etc. I Just want to know if that is a bunch lies "What is the truth abouth creation,Is there a God, How were we formed,all the animals"Just want to know the different theories.

My father stuck his penis in my mom's vagina. My father worked it back and forth a few times, ejaculated into mom and several months later I popped out.

[NotBlinded]

I'm really going to have to give up now. I am not putting a god in the gaps...I am noticing an essence that is already in the gaps and in everything. I am tired of being misunderstood and when I try to explain more and I still get no where. You can look at me as an idiot if you wish and that's okay. I give up...

I am not looking at you as an idiot. Never have. Quite the contrary. I'm trying to get clarification of how you see things, because I keep getting a knee-jerk reaction to what I seem to be hearing. I'm asking for myself. Are you willing to help me understand?

I know you haven't Antlerman. I think there are times when we (I include myself) have such a set understanding of something, either for or against, that it makes it impossible to see what someone is trying to say. I have done that many, many times and I still do. I don't know what causes an epiphany to occur, but I can say that is has happened to me. At one time, I was set for the fundamental mindset and then I was strongly set against it. What I didn't realize was that I still had the same mindset, but just on the opposite extreme. Then something clicked, I don't know how or why, but it did. Many of the contradictions about religion was because of this mindset. The fundamentalists did not have the entire truth and the rejectionists did not have the entire truth. It became clear to me that the truth was not found by reading it literally. That is what both the fundamentalist and the rejectionist does. The rejectionist has every right to reject it literally because it is not true on that level. The fundamentalist has every right to reject the complete rejection of it's religion because there are philosophical truths in it. But, if they did that, then the extremes would disappear wouldn't they?

 

You are right, I shouldn't feel the need to justify what I believe. I just was in hopes that what I said would be able to spark that little understanding that I had, and in the process, prove fruitful for me because of the research I have to do to express what I'm trying to say. But, everyone has their own path and I shouldn't assume that my understanding may help others see things the way I do. That is my ego.

 

Of course I don't want you to go away Greg. I just tire of being accussed of the same things the fundamentalists are.

 

I understand the logic of what you said about contradictions, but I also understand that sometimes there are other variables that will make the contradiction a paradox.

 

This may not be the best time to say this, but HUH? (smiling as I type)

Now that's a statement that needs some 'splainin Lucy! LOL

Please - do give me an example of what you mean, or phrase it differerntly so that I might understand your intent better.

But varibles that make a contraiction a paradox, now that's a face-value statement that describes changing the nature of the condition by adding a variable. This happens all the time, equasions's results are changed every time a new factor is intorduced...

but if the original condition was "contradiction", I'm wondering what "variable" will change that contradiction into a "paradox". (?)

Ummm...more to it than meets the eye? An undiscovered variable?

[Lycorth]

The other direction is to say that our creators are immortal beings, or at least have an infinite ancestry, and now you're half a step away from sounding like a christian again.

 

No offense meant beyond the obvious here Wolfheart, but claiming creators in my presence will set off the bullshit alarm every time.

 

That does it.

 

I did read your post. So what? Not one word of it changes the fact that nothing can be proven to have always existed, and hence everything must have an origin. The only bullshit here is listening to yet another fundy who just can't get over the fact that someone doesn't believe as he does. Pull your head out of your fucking ass and don't ever pretend you know a thing about what I believe, because I assure you, you don't.

 

What I don't get is why some Atheists just have to act like Xians, ie, have to assume that because someone posits there is or was a Creator of some kind that person is a borderline or closet Xian. That's the one thing I can't fucking stand about talking to some Atheists - they have to make the whole world think as they do - they're as bad as the Baptist yahoos protesting at the local shoppping mall or handing out tracts at the casino. I might as well try explaining myself to a Babble thumper - I'd get the same lame attempts to convert me to a religion I am not interested in.

 

My bullshit alarm gets set off when people can't leave well enough alone. So, I believe there is or was a Creator? Big whoop, does that somehow threaten you? Does anyone who believes in a religion or religious philosophy different than yours somehow bother you? Part of leaving Xianity behind is learning to accept others' views and beliefs, unless they are causing harm. If just the fact that someone else believes differently than you is more than you can stand, you're on the wrong board and are better off elsewhere.

 

The only one who's half a step away from sounding like a Xian is you, buddy. The thread asked for our impressions of who our Creator is, obviously assuming we believe that there was one. If you don't like my answer to that as well as to when you asked my to explain my views, tough titties. If I wanted you to preach to me, I'd ask you to. Otherwise, try showing some respect and keep your opinions to yourself unless asked for them.

[NotBlinded]

I should add one other thing. I am always looking to further my understanding and appreciation of how others view things. I have to push back at times to test a thing to see if it can have meaning for me. This forum is my process as well as others. I challenged OM all over the place and a great deal of good things came out of it for me as part of that process.

 

Never... do I want to insult you and I sincerely apologize if I have inadvertently hurt you. This is not about respect versus disrespect. I already respect you a great deal. I'm challenging you a little and that’s all.

 

Friends??

Thank you Antlerman...of course we're still friends. I admire the hell out of you!

[Open_Minded]

The universe is not a thing, it is the set of all things - all that exists.

If there WERE a "God" or sentient creator to the universe, such a creator would exist, and therefore be part of the master set of all things that exist. Such an entiry could not be "separate and apart" from the universe, and can not exist independant of it.

You can not write the laws of physics and then be immune to them, somehow above them.

Hey, that's where I live.

 

Wow ... NotBlinded ... that's where I live too.

 

Hello FNA, welcome to Ex-C....

 

I've been lurking awhile. FNA .. you are extremely educated in one of my favorite sciences. It has been a blast reading what you write about. (I'll confess up front I've not read every last sentence, but I've read enough to be fascinated )

 

Anyway ... as I read I find myself saying I don't disagree with much of what you say. But this conversation can easily get lost in the words.

 

I'm with NotBlinded - if there is a "god", and I do believe there is - this god would have to be very natural. Such an entity would NOT be "separate and apart" from the universe.

 

Now you're going to ask me to explain that to you, and I'm going to point out a few things first. One of my brothers is a scientist. He is a wonderful man and a fantastic brother. But, he is very concrete, extemely concrete. He has difficulty with unfinished puzzles.

 

Now, I on the other hand, love unfinished puzzles. My brother the scientist - wants to go find all the puzzle pieces and fit them all nicely together (and the world is a better place for his demand that the answers be found). I on the other hand accept that all the puzzle pieces will NEVER be known.

 

It is simple logic that tells me so, I've said this in another thread - but it bears repeating here. Asking the human being to adequately define the universe and all that it is - is like asking the tree to define the forest. The only way the tree can define the forest is to participate in it.

 

The tree can not walk around from one end of the forest gathering information. It can not grow wings and fly overhead gathering information. It is required to take the information it has at hand and "know" the forest in this way.

 

Throughout history, in all cultures, people have struggled to "know" the universe. Some choose the path of science, and the world is better for it. But others are more inclined to choose music, the arts, nature, etc... And then there are those who struggle to know on an intuitive level.

 

Even Stephen Hawking has remarked that "mysticism is for those who can't do the math". Science is studying what happens when monks meditate consistently over years. There are differences in brain wave activity between beginning monks brain activity and those who have been meditating for years in a disciplined way. There is a way of persception that has nothing to do with concrete fact.

 

I can accept that humanity will never have all the puzzle pieces - to me the puzzle pieces fill themselves in on another level. That is largely why I have stayed out of this discussion, to me trying to "prove" whether there is a creator, or not is pointless.

 

I use the word "God" because it has been my inner experience that this ALL THAT IS is aware. It has been my inner experience that there is purpose and love and wisdom within and through and beyond all. As much as I love the science of it all, the science can take one only so far. In the end we are rooted in the human experience trying to know something completely beyond our ability to grasp.

 

NotBlinded... I know I've said it before ... but I'm going to say it again here.

 

I LOVE THE WAY YOU THNK

 

Antlerman - I have completely enjoyed our conversations together and look forward to more.

 

FNA I look forward to getting to know you .. . I really do. Your grasp of quantum science fascinates me. But, as much as I enjoy reading science, in the end my heart is with other - more subtle -ways of perceiving.

[NotBlinded]

The universe is not a thing, it is the set of all things - all that exists.

If there WERE a "God" or sentient creator to the universe, such a creator would exist, and therefore be part of the master set of all things that exist. Such an entiry could not be "separate and apart" from the universe, and can not exist independant of it.

You can not write the laws of physics and then be immune to them, somehow above them.

Hey, that's where I live.

 

Wow ... NotBlinded ... that's where I live too.

I thought for a minute that you had left me! It's nice to see you were here all along.

[Antlerman]

You are right, I shouldn't feel the need to justify what I believe. I just was in hopes that what I said would be able to spark that little understanding that I had, and in the process, prove fruitful for me because of the research I have to do to express what I'm trying to say. But, everyone has their own path and I shouldn't assume that my understanding may help others see things the way I do. That is my ego.

I'm glad you're not angry with me. I didn't like the feeling that I offended you. I really would like to continue asking you questions (sometimes pointed), if I may?

 

I recognize and fully agree with you that a lot of the process that I've seen in others and myself has been to go from religious literalism to the exact other extreme, i.e., "the bible is false so spirituality has zero value!" It's the same thing as saying the bible is true so anyone who thinks differently is wrong.

 

I am finding value in the nurturing of that spiritual aspect of my human nature, but I cannot and will not allow myself to base it on the same sorts of faulty grounds as I did in accepting the logical arguments of the apologists. You do understand, don't you? What happened to the value of that faith once the arguments that "validated it" became exposed as false??? The whole thing fell apart!

 

This is why I am so careful in weighing what other people say about how they approach a spiritual outlook on life. If I hear they are basing it on fallacies of logic or science, then I see this as a major warning flag to its potential collapse for them. I guess that is why I'm focusing my thoughts at something I've said before that, "A mythology has to transcend the temporal for it to have true power. If it is brought down into the temporal, then it's testable and becomes a suspect as Bigfoot and ET, thus loosing its transcendent nature." (Something to that effect).

 

If someone were to simply say, "I believe in God because I feel it in my heart", and leave it at that, well.... great! And you know, that actually might have meaning to me as I see how happy that belief makes them. It was someone else's enthusiasm about sushi that opened me to try it. Now I love eel! But nope... instead out come all these rational proofs of his existence in a rock, a fish, etc... Now God is in the temporal realm, and has been diminished as a mythological symbol.

 

Indeed, you may not be doing this and are simply using symbolic language in a way to communicate experience - poetry. And I think this is what I sense your frustration is about? Have you ever thought of writing music? You should hear some of my compositions sometime - they are all about these metaphysical concepts. (It was the only language with enough words to make an attempt at this) Let me know in a PM if you're interested in hearing any of them?