Hawking his theory

[loCAtek]

Stoat, you need to get out more? You're from predominately C of E territory, which is not a spiritual faith, but a state-run religion. Seems you've only known dogma.


My experience was: my parents were agnostic/atheist; in that they not only choose not to follow any religion, but didn't even like to talk about it. More often my Dad liked to mock Christians, and taunted my Aunts by threatening to become a Satanist -much like Gob does. the usual answer to any of my questions was, "We don't know, you can do whatever you want."
I was left to choose my own philosophy, and probably because of my family's influence, didn't choose Christianity, or any faith until my collage years. (In that period of time, I did get to enjoying Science Fiction, and loved tuning into the programs like the above mentioned.) It was a collage philosophy class in fact, where I came across Eastern Spirituality in books; not scriptures. Buddhism doesn't have a bible. I still claimed to be an agnostic, but over time and study, I learned to appreciate spirituality's value. If someone is pursuing it, I can respect that. So, I'm doing my best to continue studying it too, in all its forms.

[Big RR]

"C of E" lo?

[thestoat]

"C of E" lo?

Church Of England.

Actually, lo, I grew up Methodist, but the same misogyny, hypocrisy, etc happened there too. Interesting how you are more spiritual. If anything I like the Buddhist ideals, but I am an atheist through and through because I have come to the conclusion that there really is no need for a god. Yes, the C of E is state run (sort of), but then, so is Catholicism, and there is a fair bit of misogyny, hypocrisy, etc there.

Science operates that way as well Stoat

Indeed, bigRR, and science should be run that way. The difference is they don't cling on to the central dogma ("there is a god, let's fit everything in around that"). Ok, scientists will do so while embracing new ideas until the old is ready to be thrown out. If you could argue "quantum mechanics is fundamentally flawed because blah blah", scientists would judge this on its merit and possibly throw out qm because of it. If you could argue "there can't be a god because of blah blah" the faithful would still believe. That si the difference I am trying to illustrate.

Therefore, I believe the only completely ‘new’ advance has been nuclear power.

I don't think that is fair, lo. You could argue that nuclear power relies on old mining techniques to get the fuel, building techniques to build the power station, etc.

The silicon chip was a massive leap forward, but yes, it relies on electricity. We stand on the shoulders of giants, but that should not cheapen scientific advances.

Well I have a big problem wih omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience;; indeed, i don't think these are proper descriptions of god

Interesting to hear you say that, bigRR. I had never considered a less than perfect god (though I suppose he does break some of his own deadly sins). I wonder how many people believe god is omnipotent, scient, present, etc and can break the laws of physics (as we know them). Surely for those who believe, if he created the laws he must be able to break them? After all, who is going to stop him?

[Big RR]

Well, even if we assume a supernatural being could break the laws (and I'm not certain this is the case), grave consequences, or even destruction of the universe, could flow from those las being broken so, at the very least, i would think god is effectively bound by the physical laws of the universe if and when god chooses to interact with it--assuming god wants the universe to continue.

[Timster]

Well, even if we assume a supernatural being could break the laws (and I'm not certain this is the case), grave consequences, or even destruction of the universe, could flow from those las being broken so, at the very least, i would think god is effectively bound by the physical laws of the universe if and when god chooses to interact with it--assuming god wants the universe to continue.

wow~ So really not much of a god at all then... so what's the point?

Did anyone bother to read my link? BigRR what is your definition of a miracle?

Is it not the very suspension of those "laws" as we know them to operate that we call miraculous?

[Big RR]

Miracle, Tim? IMHO, an apparent breaking of what we perceived to be an immutable law. However, if the law can be broken, then I can't think it is an immutable law (or at least a law that applies in all cases). So while I think it is quite possible that the divine could intervene to stack the odds (such as restoring someone with an "incurable" disease to health), the divine could not do the impossible, such as make a straight circle, or a 3 dimensional plane, nor would I think could the divine alter the past so the present would be different than it is. Maybe "could not" is not an accurate term--perhaps "would not" is better, because altering fundamental laws at will could alter the very fabric of the universe. It's like an old science fiction story I read; a college scientist was lecturing when a large cube appeared on his desk; explaining to his students, he said he invented a time machine, and one hour from now he would send that cube back exactly one hour in time--hence its appearance. This prompted a student to ask, "What if you don't send it back--what would happen to the cube then?" One hour later he did not send the cube back--it remained, but the res of the universe was destroyed. Clearly, even if a supreme being could alter the universe, it could not alter the consequences of its actions according to the laws of the universe it is interacting with, lest the universe be ended because of those actions.

I don't see that as making any such divinity "not much of a god", anymore than choosing to play a game according to set down rules makes us less human.

[loCAtek]

I wonder how many people believe god is omnipotent, scient, present, etc and can break the laws of physics (as we know them). Surely for those who believe, if he created the laws he must be able to break them?

Sure, those are the laws of this physical universe, but as quantum physics suggests there are other laws in other dimensions. An omnipotent being could skirt this dimension's laws by popping into another(like achieving Warp Drive); I guess for lack of a better word, we'd call that a 'miracle'.

[thestoat]

Sure, those are the laws of this physical universe, but as quantum physics suggests there are other laws in other dimensions. An omnipotent being could skirt this dimension's laws by popping into another(like achieving Warp Drive); I guess for lack of a better word, we'd call that a 'miracle'.

Lo, so a miracle is basically a holding place for a "standard" thing that science can't currently do. And once science manages it, then god's repertoire of miracles diminishes. That suggests that ultimately we could catch up with him

[tyro]

When I was in school we had religious instruction. It wasn’t called that, but it had the same walk and the same quack.

Incidentally, I think teaching the Bible in school isn’t such a bad idea. If one were to stick with the Old Testament, one couldn’t offend any of Jews, Christians and Moslems.

Having been through such an educational system has left me with a much clearer insight as to why atheism makes more sense. But I digress.

In those early days we were told that a miracle was the result of God, man and nature working together.

There was no indication that any of those 3 could work outside of the rules by which they functioned.



As for raising the dead and calling it a miracle: Did you know that POE wrote about people being buried alive because it happened? Before embalming and all that, some folks just seemed to be dead when they were not.

It wasn’t easy, but I could find at least one reference that says that a “wake” was “…actually a watch over the deceased to see if there would be an wakening.


So raising someone from the “dead” might not be so miraculous as it first seems. After all, if He was that good at it, why wasn’t he swarmed with people wanting their loved ones back?

[loCAtek]

That suggests that ultimately we could catch up with him

As previously stated, some things aren't physically feasible in this universe (faster-than-light, telportation, time travel) and scientific knowledge is infinate (What's behind the next universe?).
'Catching up with him" is again, like saying we can ultimately count to infinity.

[loCAtek]

Actually, lo, I grew up Methodist, but the same misogyny, hypocrisy, etc happened there too. Interesting how you are more spiritual. If anything I like the Buddhist ideals, but I am an atheist through and through because I have come to the conclusion that there really is no need for a god.

That seems to be the crux of atheism, as opposed to agnosticism, as I understand it. Those like myself once, who just lacked faith due to no or low spiritual input, called themselves agnostic. There could be something but input wasn't available.
Those who had bad experiences with Christian Dogma, something that isn't spiritual; became atheists, believing all the input was in.

Rejecting dogma is admirable, however, to insist that that kind of Christianity is the only kind of religion there is, is exactly to adhere to the dogma.

[thestoat]

As previously stated, some things aren't physically feasible in this universe (faster-than-light, telportation, time travel) and scientific knowledge is infinate (What's behind the next universe?).
'Catching up with him" is again, like saying we can ultimately count to infinity.

The point is, if he "gets round" speed of light restrictions by nipping through a wormhole, maybe we can do the same. As I said, his miracles are just trucks science hasn't yet learned, so assuming he doesn't have an infinite number of them, there is no reason science can't eventually catch up...

Those who had bad experiences with Christian Dogma, something that isn't spiritual; became atheists, believing all the input was in.

This certainly isn't the case with me. Sure I saw (and still see a lot of really bad people proclaiming to be of one religious denomination or another. But I decided to look at this whole reason why humans are susceptible to this weakness (imho) of having to believe there is something better out there. I came to the conclusion that god doesn't exist not through bad experiences with religious people I had met but because I decided that there really is no reason why god should exist. Pretty much everything can be explained without him, and I am sure that that which cannot, will be in the future.

[loCAtek]

As previously stated, some things aren't physically feasible in this universe (faster-than-light, telportation, time travel) and scientific knowledge is infinate (What's behind the next universe?).
'Catching up with him" is again, like saying we can ultimately count to infinity.

The point is, if he "gets round" speed of light restrictions by nipping through a wormhole, .

Depending on what a wormhole is. So far, (outside of science fiction) they appear to be 'singularity points'; either entrances like the Big Bang, or exits like Black Holes. In either case; it's energy that can pass through these and not matter. Therefore, not physically feasible because a)They take so much energy to create and b)They can only transfer energies.

Pretty much everything can be explained without him, and I am sure that that which cannot, will be in the future.

So, you believe we'll count to infinity, even though the physical evidence doesn't support it. Interesting faith.

[thestoat]

Depending on what a wormhole is. So far, (outside of science fiction) they appear to be 'singularity points'; either entrances like the Big Bang, or exits like Black Holes. In either case; it's energy that can pass through these and not matter. Therefore, not physically feasible because a)They take so much energy to create and b)They can only transfer energies

Either way, if there is a god and he can do it, I believe it is therefore possible to do and science will be able to achieve it. If something is physically impossible for us, I believe it is impossible for god too, such as travelling faster than the speed of light.

So, you believe we'll count to infinity, even though the physical evidence doesn't support it. Interesting faith.

No, I have not mentioned counting to infinity - that is one of your straw men. The analogy is ridiculous unless you think that there are an infinite number of feats he might be able to achieve that we currently cannot.

[loCAtek]

Yes, I believe he/she/it is not finite, but infinite; that state can and does exist. E.G. Time is not physical, but it does many, in fact, infinitely more things than we can do. It built a universe and all its forces. We can't do that.

Perhaps in a few eons technology will make us god-like, (but not infinite) if it doesn’t destroy us first.

What the facts are: since mankind has adopted a more secular civilization; say since the industrial revolution; and turned away from supporting the church to supporting corporations(non-theist, if not atheist), the rise of technology has been very detrimental to the planet’s ecology and may be, in a short order of time, very detrimental to man. If left unchecked, this may be over a few decades by pollution and global warming; or may be in a few days by nuclear war.

Some atheists give the argument that many wars were caused by religion. During those conflicts many people died in the name of God; but that has been nothing like the extinction of multiple species in the name of technology and civilization. With technology, man could be the instrument of his AND his world’s extinction. These are not religious-nut ‘fairy tales’ but verifiable facts.

What spirituality did for the world (not just man) kept the planet in balance for millennium.
What technology has done for the world has nearly annihilated it and man, in just a few hundred years. We haven't created anything, only sadly destroyed so very much.


This is what technology hath wrot, not God.

[thestoat]

Yes, I believe he/she/it is not finite, but infinite

No I am not talking about god (though what does the statement "he is infinite" mean?). I am talking about the things they can do. I don't believe there are an infinite number of things that can be done.

It built a universe and all its forces. We can't do that.

Yes, there's 1. You need to be able to list a lot more than that to suggest there are infinitely more things a god can do.

Some atheists give the argument that many wars were caused by religion.

The implication I read here is that you don't believe this? I am very surpised at that.

During those conflicts many people died in the name of God; but that has been nothing like the extinction of multiple species in the name of technology and civilization. With technology, man could be the instrument of his AND his world’s extinction. These are not religious-nut ‘fairy tales’ but verifiable facts.

I agree. Though don't forget that nuclear Armageddon could very easily be caused today by a Jihad - religion again! And although technology has given us the means to obliterate ourselves now, had it been available during the Crusades who is to say it wouldn't have been used. You can't exonerate religion on that basis. Many atrocities have been, are and will be performed in the name of religion.

[loCAtek]

Some atheists give the argument that many wars were caused by religion.

The implication I read here is that you don't believe this? I am very surpised at that.

I believe it, but I believe it was religious dogma, which is not spirituality. Dogma is man-made, spirituality is divine. I don't equate the two as the same.

Wars are caused by Man, they use dogma as an excuse but Man uses all kinds of excuses for war.

Many atrocities have been, are and will be performed in the name of religion.

In the name of religious dogma, usually masking the real motive- human megalomania.

No war was fought over the opposite spiritual view, the 'Golden Rule' - Do unto others as you'd have done to you.



Dogma causes atrocities to man, corporate non-theism causes atrocities to the whole planet.

[thestoat]

Sorry, lo, but it appears to me that you are simply splitting religion into the good bits that you call "spirituality" "and the dregs that you call "dogma". It is a little too neat and simplistic and I don't think the real world works that way. I'd have said the pope was a pretty spiritual person yet they have traditionally been among the worst of the lot.

Dogma is man-made, spirituality is divine

Well, that's lovely isn't it. Means that using this as a base, religion cannot be attacked or held accountable for anything bad. I don't accept that.

(Any more ideas on the infinite number of things god can do that we can't? )

[Crackpot]

There is much that is persecuted which has been invented out of whole cloth there is more that is missed the point on and a absolute huge amount that is taken entirely out of context. Taken as a whole there are few issues in the Bible that I have issue/struggle with. (the major one being Homosexuality)

A few weeks ago at a bible study (a rare occasion we were going off of an outside provided worksheet) We were asked the question:

In what way do you as a Christian emulate God?

To which I answered unfortunately it seems that the one way that Christians as a whole seem to emulate God is in the one way that he reserved solely for himself: Judgement.

[loCAtek]

(Any more ideas on the infinite number of things god can do that we can't? )

Yes thanks, I'll start my reply here, since I've been thinking on that.

First off, my train of thought went: If he is as old as the universe, then we have a lot of catching up to do. The closest analogy is- can we ever know all the contents of the internet? (Basically, it is the sum knowledge of the known universe)
However, It is not stagnate, there is not just a set number of pieces of data but it is always growing and changing with time. (As you[stoat] have already professed to agree with) Therefore, if God is always growing and learning, AND already has a huge head start on us- can we ever catch up?

Your point that the universe if finite, might make that possible.

However, the Cosmos[greater than, or containing more than one universe] is not finite.

As pointed out earlier, there are dimensions (proven quantum mathematically) beyond ours. It can be neither confirmed or denied that there are dimensions beyond that, [Schrodinger's cat] without traveling to those dimensions.

We, as humanity, can not travel there, as breaking the dimensional barrier would take the all the power of the known universe. And, I think no one would like to sacrifice the entirety of existence just to open up ONE singularity point. What would be the point of that?

Yet, we have [quantum] proof of just that happening with the Big Bang and Black Holes. Meaning if not matter, then energy can pass through those points.

...

Most, if not all accounts of God, report him/her/it acting not like a physical being, but an energy force. E.G. Disembodied voices, emulating light, defying gravity, etc.
Making God, or spirit be an energy that can exceed the physical, such as worm-hole travel and infinite lifespan. Our universe may be one of many God visits in his spiritual energy form that we can never hope to achieve. We are finite, temporal; he/she/it is not.

Lastly, why would God chose to visit us?

The energy it takes to breach a dimensional barrier, to create the physical... [As Einstein stated E =mc2, energy can neither be created nor destroyed, merely converted.] ...could it have come deliberately from this Cosmic Energy Being; are we the physical manifestation of his coming into this dimension? Is he/she/it this whole other universe of energy, that gave part of itself to create us? I use question marks to provide disclaimers as I'm speculating, as the extra-dimensional can ONLY be speculated by man and never conclusively proved. We can only know the finite of our own universe, God is not so limited.


I'll leave it at that for now, more later.