God?

[KerrTexas]

Re: Scientifically sound Bible...

The point is that if a creator can arise from nothing, then the same would apply for the universe itself...

The point is that the creator did not arise from nothing. As mentioned before, the creator became AWARE of His existence. Thus the only two words capitalized and in bold are the words.." I AM!"

... shows that it is not an act of creation but simply a coincidence of circumstances.

It isnt simply a coincidence of circumstances. It would be a massive amount of coincidences, one after the other, in different regions of existence, where to have everything be 'exactly' perfect for creation to not only begin, but to continue to exist is extremely improbable.

The other component covered long ago, the one you are missing, is the experience of God. And since you are firmly rooted in your stance of dis-belief, you will have difficulty understanding the parables as written in the Bible, any Bible.

 

[nicknack]

Re: Scientifically sound Bible...

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.

With our current technology, we only know that many solar systems out there aren't even adaptable for life to survive. Even so, no life is intelligent itself to contact us. If it were advanced, it would have contacted us. Likewise, the universe is billions of years old, if there were intelligent civilisation out there, wouldn't it contact us? The galaxy, let alone the universe is already very huge in size. So what I'm saying is, life is possible out there but not intelligent ones

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?

Amd vice versa to you.

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, you don't understand. The Creator is outside the limits of all laws of physics. Outside it is timeless, spaceless, dimensionless. This is proven in the theory of relativity that there is a place outside the universe which has no rules quite like ours. Like hey, the Creator himself as I've said is not subjected to all this rules, not subjected to rules that he 'created' by 'creation'. Which means, there is NO existence, nothing to judge the beginning or an end. Likewise, a common flaw in your arguement is that the Creator is PART of the universe. No, actually that is part of Hinduism belief that the Gods emerged from the eternal universe and created life. The universe by the way, is different from the Creator. Like I said, it is only manifested energy.

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.

I'm not a professional linguist, but I vaguely remember in some posts Hebrew is a numerical language that can be translated in many ways. There is reason to believe that throughout many translations done in the Bible may be off from the original Hebrew version. Even there when the Bible was released there were Greek and Roman versions around already. And no, much hard work has been put in to the translations, until now there is still much translating going out.

 

[Roel van Houten]

Re: Scientifically sound Bible...

As mentioned before, the creator became AWARE of His existence. Thus the only two words capitalized and in bold are the words.." I AM!"

So he was there all the time, he just wasn't aware of his existence? That still doesn't explain how he got there in the first place.

I'll admit over and over again that I don't know how exactly the universe came to being, but I'd rather stay in doubt the rest of my life than accept the flawed reasoning you just provided.

It would be a massive amount of coincidences, one after the other, in different regions of existence, where to have everything be 'exactly' perfect for creation to not only begin, but to continue to exist is extremely improbable.

But that's the point. The entire universe isn't exactly perfect. As far as we know, it's just our planet. Just think of it would you use a gazillion gallons of paint just to paint one tiny portrait?

The other component covered long ago, the one you are missing, is the experience of God.

Perhaps I'm missing that component because it simply doesn't exist?

 

[KerrTexas]

Re: Scientifically sound Bible...

So he was there all the time, he just wasn't aware of his existence? That still doesn't explain how he got there in the first place.

Yes to the first part. I dont think it is a question of how he got there, the question I believe we both have is ...how did He become aware?

I'd rather stay in doubt the rest of my life than accept the flawed reasoning you just provided.

Flawed in what way?

The entire universe isn't exactly perfect

Oh? If you glance back in this thread, you can review the very tight tolerances required to A. Create all that there is. B. Maintain all that there is. Any slight deviation from these tolerances means everything ceases to exist as it appears currently.

Perhaps I'm missing that component because it simply doesn't exist?

Nope. Remember though, we do have a bet going....If we are right, you owe us a beer in the heavenly lounge ( or a hotty totty, depending ), and if you are right, then it is we who will buy you a beer! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/yum.gif

 

[Roel van Houten]

Re: Scientifically sound Bible...

So what I'm saying is, life is possible out there but not intelligent ones

Now I don't believe in aliens, but I do think it is possible that there are intelligent lifeforms on other planets. So far we haven't been able to contact lifeforms on other planets due to physical and technical limitations. Why would that be any different for other lifeforms out there?

Amd vice versa to you.

Well, if you read this entire thread again, you'll see that I've been saying this all the time.

Likewise, a common flaw in your arguement is that the Creator is PART of the universe.

Well, that's not necessarily a flaw in my arguement. I don't believe both theories. Ray seems to think that the creator IS part of the universe or rather the total sum of energy in our universe. But in my arguement it's irrelevant whether the creator is part of the universe or not, the creator had to come from somewhere (just like the univers itself).

Which means, there is NO existence, nothing to judge the beginning or an end.

You're obviously not getting my point. Lets just say for arguement sake there is no such thing as a creator in this void you're describing. I know it might be hard to imagine, but please try. Got it? Okay. Now imagine that, instead of the universe being created, the universe evolved from this void. Voilá. Brand new theory. I know it doesn't make any sense, but then again it was just to demonstrate why I do not buy stories like "the creator has always existed" or the story you just presented to me.

Hebrew is a numerical language that can be translated in many ways.

Can we at least agree that many of the stories in the English bible as we know it are contradictory and generally impossible? Also, if god wanted people to have faith in him and be able to properly make a choice, then why wasn't the bible written in a universal language?

Roel

 

[Roel van Houten]

Re: Scientifically sound Bible...

...how did He become aware?

That's another way of putting it, yes. However, in order for someone or something to become aware, it has to exist. But please tell me, how did he become aware?

Flawed in what way?

You talk about the creator becoming aware, without getting to the heart of the matter. Saying that the creator became aware is just like saying the universe evolved from nothing to something.

Oh? If you glance back in this thread, you can review the very tight tolerances required to A. Create all that there is. B. Maintain all that there is. Any slight deviation from these tolerances means everything ceases to exist as it appears currently.

You were talking about the conditions on our planet being just perfect to allow for us to exist. So I was illustrating that the rest of the universe is imperfect in that respect, which made me wonder if you would use a gazillion gallons of paint just to paint a tiny portrait...

Nope. Remember though, we do have a bet going....

Yes, hardly a fair bet. If I'm right they'll have to bury that beer along with my coffin /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif But if you guys are right, I won't mind drinking a beer with you... I'm afraid that you guys will be in three different places, judging from your diverse theories

Roel

 

[nicknack]

Re: Scientifically sound Bible...

Now I don't believe in aliens, but I do think it is possible that there are intelligent lifeforms on other planets. So far we haven't been able to contact lifeforms on other planets due to physical and technical limitations. Why would that be any different for other lifeforms out there?

Like I said if the universe is that old, there should be civilisations millions of years old possibly advanced enough to visit us, but why not? The question isn't really limitations, it's just that until now no matter where astronomers look, no planet is like Earth at all. The closest it can get is an atmosphere and water.

Well, that's not necessarily a flaw in my arguement. I don't believe both theories. Ray seems to think that the creator IS part of the universe or rather the total sum of energy in our universe. But in my arguement it's irrelevant whether the creator is part of the universe or not, the creator had to come from somewhere (just like the univers itself).

I can't be possibly repeating myself by saying the Creator is not limited by this term: existence. Because simply that he isn't governed by rules. Now, ok get this. Imagine a void that is not a void but a void that lacks any rules. Try to think like the mainframe of the matrix where nothing is limited, where anything is possible. That is when the Creator created the universe with rules that govern everything around us, to make life possible. The Creator itself is not Life, He Created life. He did not become created, He only became aware of his existence when he Created. How? Because when he Created Existence only did he realise that it was possible to exist and not to de-exist. I apologise, I cannot accept any theory that the Universe just came from a *kaboom* from confined matter for absolutely no reason at all. It simply does not make sense just as a Universe being created for no Purpose at all. No, this purpose does not have anything to with your life, it has nothing to do with psychology at all. It is just something for us to know but not to be revealed to just yet. Thus, the Creator is any sense is not in the limations of 'existence', the only few words we can describe in english is that He is always there.

Let's say if there is no Creator, and we do not know where the Universe comes from? But all we do know that the current theory of the Big Bang is correct for many years now and that it is highly improbable that it did not just happen like that, it happened for a Reason and that only Reason was to be a Creator. Maybe it doesn't make sense to you now, someday you will. Over the years there have been reowned atheists who have renounced atheism but accepted the fact that yes, there may or is a Creator, but not embracing a religion.

Can we at least agree that many of the stories in the English bible as we know it are contradictory and generally impossible? Also, if god wanted people to have faith in him and be able to properly make a choice, then why wasn't the bible written in a universal language?

What's the point of Universal language? Furthermore in the Bible, Men were spread out into the world into according races and languages. What's the point of a Universal Language if at that time people spoke different languages?

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: Scientifically sound Bible...

Hi Roel,

I do not think there's a Creative Force that created us.

I know. And in my opinion, the reason for this is because you cannot see that creation is a continuum. What I mean by that is that you can willfully admit that it takes human action to create something complex and intricate, like a computer. Yet you do not extend this phenomenon to all forms of complexity, especially when presented with the scientific facts about thermodynamic entropy. Because you cannot perceive (with your senses that you admit are very limited) any form of Creator, yet you can perceive that humans do create complex entities, you come to the conclusion that the idea of creator is a non-sequitor with respect to the evidence at our level of existence.

Thinking you have found the absolute truth is the most dangerous thing you could ever do.

Or, it could be the most eye-opening (and mind-opening) discovery of your life. This statement of yours sounds an awfully lot like you are stating an absolute truth.

If we can't be seen seperate from total universal Energy, then there was never need for a creator.

You see, the problem with this thought, Roel, is that it obviously breaks down at our human level, and is shown to not be true. Again, I use the example of the complexity of the computer that you don't want to seem to address. If you claim "there was never a need for a creator", then why is there an obvious need for a creator (humans) to achieve the complexity of design inherent in a computer. This is where you consistently err: You assume that just because something is true at one level of the universe's architecture that it need not be true at other levels. This is where you either ignore, or disbelieve, what we have come to know about fractal embedding of structures in our universe. It is an area I suggest you need to seriously study a bit more, as you do not seem to understand it if you can ignore it as you do.

After all, a creator that is part of (or consist of) the total universal Energy does not need to create what it already is.

SO by this quote would it be safe to say that you would make the claim that our bodies are not continually recreating themselves? Or for that matter that our minds are also not continually seeking to recreate ourselves? After all, given that our bodies and minds are part of all Energy in the universe, then there is no need to create (or re-create) what already is...right?

then "the creator" did not "create"... instead the creator was always there.

With such statements you reveal that you insist upon seeing existence and creation as a linear process. As something that has a distinct starting point and a distinct ending point. This is the fallacy of your human senses that I am extolling you to abandon. Creation is a continuous loop. It is a cycle. And it is why I agree with Creedo, OvrLrd, CAT, Zerubbabbel, and others, that FREQUENCY is a major aspect of understanding the continuum of Creation.

There's no intelligent driving force behind our existence.

Roel the monkey man? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

You, however, think you have reached somekind of "higher plane" and you refuse to look back "down".

I don't "think" I have. I have experienced that higher plane. Such experiences are what have allowed me to integrate continuum dynamics and its components that are scientifically shown to be accurate (non-linear dynamics, closed-loop phenomenon, fractal embedding, etc.) into a larger view where science and spirituality are two ways of describing the same thing. Indeed, not only is it incorrect to say I do not look "back down", but I continually not only look "back down" but REACH "back down" to people who have yet to understand that life is a complex, closed-loop continuum. What I have been discussing, in this thread and others, are scientific facts that you have admitted are valid in that you cannot dispute them. Some of these facts have been supported by mainstream science for many years. Others are now creeping onto the scene where mainstream scientists are proposing them as theories. Theories which were known to many of the ancients.

I will go as far as to claim that YOU are thinking in the most LINEAR way imagineable.

You can make that claim, but how do you expect to make it stick if you admit that your knowledge of scientific and mathematic concepts is limited? Until you can fully comprehend the difference between the energetics of a "open loop" system (linear one) and a "closed loop" system (a non-linear one), then your claims that I am thinking in "the most LINEAR way imaginable" cannot be supported by fact.

RMT

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: Scientifically sound Bible...

Hi again, Roel:

Some quotes from a guy by the name of Gregory Bateson. Think about them:

Epigrams coined by or referred to by Bateson
Number is different from quantity.
The map is not the territory, and the name is not the thing named. Coined by Alfred Korzybski.
There are no monotone "values" in biology.
Logic is a poor model of cause and effect.
Language commonly stresses only one side of any interaction.
Bateson defines information as "a difference that makes a difference", "knowledge is a difference that makes a difference that makes a difference".

RMT

 

[creedo299]

Re: Scientifically sound Bible...

I agree with nicknack.

I

lines deletes tos rules

 

[Roel van Houten]

Re: Scientifically sound Bible...

Like I said if the universe is that old, there should be civilisations millions of years old possibly advanced enough to visit us, but why not?

No. Assuming the universe started from a single point moving outwards, our galaxy might be in a certain "belt" of galaxies that allow habitable planets to exist. So planets that are inhabited by lifeforms similar to ours will not be much older or more advanced. I don't think this is necessarily the case, but it is impossible for you to know that no lifeforms exist on other planets.

Because simply that he isn't governed by rules.

How convenient. With arguement like this you can make any fairytale come true.

I apologise, I cannot accept any theory that the Universe just came from a *kaboom* from confined matter for absolutely no reason at all.

You don't have to apologise, everyone's entitled to his or her opinion, but so am I. I'm curious about what happened before this "big bang", but I refuse to bluntly accept any theory concerning a creator.

It simply does not make sense just as a Universe being created for no Purpose at all.

Not everything serves a purpose in my opinion. Why is it so hard for people to let go of the human concept called "purpose"? I'm enjoying life to the max, but I'm not under the impression that I am here for a reason. In fact it's kind of egocentric to think that we are here for a reason.

Maybe it doesn't make sense to you now, someday you will.

*sigh* It's starting to get annoying. For some silly reason you seem to be under the impression that someday I'll share your views. That is not necessarily true, in fact I think it's highly improbable.

Over the years there have been reowned atheists who have renounced atheism but accepted the fact that yes, there may or is a Creator, but not embracing a religion.

So? There are just as many people who used to believe, but are now atheists. It's a non-argument.

What's the point of a Universal Language if at that time people spoke different languages?

That IS the point. Besides you did not answer my question: Can we at least agree that many of the stories in the English bible as we know it are contradictory and generally impossible?

 

[Roel van Houten]

Re: Scientifically sound Bible...

Because you cannot perceive (with your senses that you admit are very limited) any form of Creator, yet you can perceive that humans do create complex entities, you come to the conclusion that the idea of creator is a non-sequitor with respect to the evidence at our level of existence.

I don't see any reason to believe that the fact that humans can create complex entities undoubtly means that there's a creator or creative force that does the same. In my eyes there's a fundamental difference between things being created by humans and things being formed by hundreds, thousands or even millions of external factors. They keyword here is "will". A flower is not created by will, but is the result of a series of events.

Also, I do not think that my senses in particular are limited. I think your senses are just as limited. The fact that you "see" more, does not necessarily mean there really IS more.

Or, it could be the most eye-opening (and mind-opening) discovery of your life. This statement of yours sounds an awfully lot like you are stating an absolute truth.

Thank you for illustrating my point, I couldn't have done a better job myself. I hope this was somewhat of an eye-opener for you.

If you claim "there was never a need for a creator", then why is there an obvious need for a creator (humans) to achieve the complexity of design inherent in a computer.

My point was that if the creator can exist without being created, then the same applies to the universe.

You assume that just because something is true at one level of the universe's architecture that it need not be true at other levels.

Correct. You think the opposite is true, yet you don't apply the same logic to the creator. If the same rules apply to every level of our universe, that inevitably means that our creator was also created and so on and so on.

After all, given that our bodies and minds are part of all Energy in the universe, then there is no need to create (or re-create) what already is...right?

Funny. However you did not get my point /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif The creator is supposedly the one who created everything. If everything conists of energy and the creator is part of this energy, then the creator created himself. And this is exactly where your comparision to human recreation stops: we simply do not create ourselves. So to answer your question: No, we do not need to create what already is.

This is the fallacy of your human senses that I am extolling you to abandon.

Before extolling me to abandon the fallacy of my human senses, try abandoning your own linear way of thinking. You've already drawn your conclusion while there are more options. You claim that there is a creator, while the opposite is also very well possible. As long as you refuse to take this possibility into account, your way of thinking is just as linear or perhaps even more linear than mine.

Roel the monkey man?

Yours? If not, you might want to try it on for size

Indeed, not only is it incorrect to say I do not look "back down", but I continually not only look "back down" but REACH "back down" to people who have yet to understand that life is a complex, closed-loop continuum.

So I guess I should be thankful.

You can make that claim, but how do you expect to make it stick if you admit that your knowledge of scientific and mathematic concepts is limited?

So now YOU'RE the one claiming that only science and mathematics have all the answers? I thought I held the patents to that view. I do not have the same mathematical and scientifical knowledge you have. At least I can't abuse what I don't know. If you really think that my views are the result of my "limited senses" and "limited knowledge of scientific and mathematic concepts", I don't see how I can contribute anything useful to this thread anymore.


Roel

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: Scientifically sound Bible...

Also, I do not think that my senses in particular are limited. I think your senses are just as limited. The fact that you "see" more, does not necessarily mean there really IS more.

Roel: There's more. There really is. And more people than myself have been pointing you to how you can come to understand the "more" that really is out there...beyond only what you see and perceive in your physical shell. It involves understanding the relationships between (to start the list): Spirals, DNA, flame letters, embedding, closed-loops, and non-linear....HEAVY on the non-linear with the DNA.

The following posting from Kryon seems to have come at just the right time. I suggest you read the whole thing. There is a LOT more than just what you see in your linear world. And we are in the generation that will unlock it.

The Truth About DNA

RMT

 

[Strickalator]

this is intteresting because i have asked God many times to send me back in time....

i usually start out by asking him to send me back to a certain date with the promise i cant interfere in any life except mine

when that doesnt work i then say "God what if you send me back with no memories of anything save for one crucial memory and that was to find my true love and never leave her..."


i suppose its silly but i have asked GOD at least a dozen times to send me back in time...strike me with lightning so it sends my essence back into my younger self...

you cant imagine...well maybe you could how many different ways I have asked God to send me back and i know exactly where id like to go ...there are only a few places in time that would really matter to me i could accept everything that happened to me up until may 1st 1991

 

[creedo299]

Re: Scientifically sound Bible...

Deleted, TOS rules.

 

[Roel van Houten]

Re: Scientifically sound Bible...

Roel: There's more.

Like I said, my senses are just as LIMITED as your senses. We already agreed to the fact that we, as humans, don't get the full picture. What I meant was that your perceptions are not necessarily an accurate representation of "reality". Both our perceptions of "reality" are different, but your version is not in any way better than mine, although you like to think it is.

Roel

 

[creedo299]

Re: Scientifically sound Bible...

Deleted, TOS rules.

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: Scientifically sound Bible...

What I meant was that your perceptions are not necessarily an accurate representation of "reality". Both our perceptions of "reality" are different, but your version is not in any way better than mine, although you like to think it is.

Well, if you think that I am basing my view of non-linear reality only on perceptions, then you are thinking in error. In fact, this is why I have asked you to try to refute my science, to see if you can falsify it. And perhaps this is where your limitations in science and mathematics might be causing you to think I am only describing a hypothetical reality. But I am actually describing a view of Energy that I have not only perceived beyond our limited 4-D sense, but I have also been able to describe in terms of a closed-loop system of Massive SpaceTime.

Closed loop system dynamics is an area that only a small fraction of society really have a "grip" on right now. I wish I could describe it to you in more simple terms, but I have been trying to use the most simple terms I can. It really comes down to mathematics performed on the complex plane (x+/-iy). This is the plane where we evaluate complex system dynamics, and it is also the plane upon which recursive, fractal patterns are computed. There is a strong link between the two, and some have learned how to exploit it.

This is what I am talking about Roel. And this is why I claim to have "seen" more than you. It is because I have "seen" this on a mathematical plane of truth that is above and beyond that which our senses perceive. The neural network diagram known as the Tree Of Life is one way to become aware of closed-loop, non-linear dynamics.

In this way, since the view I describe can be modeled within the realm of non-linear mathematics, it is somewhat better than your limited view that is only based upon what your linear senses deliver to you. When you can mathematically refute what I am talking about, then you might have a leg to stand upon.
RMT

 

[Roel van Houten]

Re: Scientifically sound Bible...

When you can mathematically refute what I am talking about, then you might have a leg to stand upon.

That will save me a lot of typing. Even though I'm almost certain that you are abusively applying science, I do not have the mathematical knowledge to actually refute your statements. So, if you will only accept a mathematical refutation, I think it's better to just drop the subject and agree to disagree.

However, in my opinion I've sufficiently refuted your application of the uncertainty principle earlier in this thread. I've even brought forward some comments on your application of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which you have conveniently put aside.

Sometimes I get the feeling that you are here to preach, rather than debate this subject.

Roel

 

[KerrTexas]

Re: Scientifically sound Bible...

Like I said, my senses are just as LIMITED as your senses. We already agreed to the fact that we, as humans, don't get the full picture. What I meant was that your perceptions are not necessarily an accurate representation of "reality". Both our perceptions of "reality" are different, but your version is not in any way better than mine, although you like to think it is.

I agree with you that our perceptions are not necessarily an accurate description of 'reality'. Each of us experiences life in a different way, our perceptions based on many factors.

Rainman has senses that are more acute than mine, I have senses that are more acute than Rainmans. Collectively, we can develope a version of the truth based on what we are able to experience. We study what others have experienced/discovered and make the effort to experience/discover those things ourselves, and to adjust our version accordingly.

Our version of truth didnt just happen, as you are fond of regarding everything around you, but took years of study and research. Certainly our version may not be 100% accurate, but your version is constructed on what?

You are totally dependant upon what others experience, since you refuse to do anything to increase your own awareness. All we really are asking you to do, is try and spend some time increasing your own awareness.

Whether God exists or not, at this point I wouldnt even make that an issue for you. You could at least try the color walk exercise, and 'feel' the difference of how you perceive the colors in your environment.

This exercise is simple and doesnt take up anymore time than you already have. Each day you select a color and try to recognize it where-ever/when-ever you can. When you do see that color as you are passing by, you stop for just a moment, and without thinking about it, study the details of the color. The different hues during the day, the variations of that color, and the details of the object that is that particular color.

Could you at least give it a try? Hmmmmmm?