God = The Universe - Page 3

Thanks for the welcome.

I've never before found myself on the religious side of a "discussion," but something about being over 60 has led me down paths I would never have trodden in my arrogant, secular youth.

One of the attractions to this site is having ideas picked apart. It causes one to question one's own thinking. I have had this experience more than once. It is a healthy, expanding thing that sharpens one's own critical thinking.

I have what I would consider to be friends on this site. Nary a one agrees with me.

Quantom zero effect disproves everything we know about physics. We can't explain black holes or how a sun flare 100 miles away from the sun burns over 1000% hotter than the surface of the sun, we can't explain a lot of things with our science but It is much more heinous to think that it is made by a man mad religions god or that it can be interpreted by any god on the planet, organized religion is sick and disgusting as well as beautiful and intriguing but it is a work of fiction and treating it as an acceptable way to base your entire life around is a breeding ground for everything from war to slavery, from pedophilia to the hinderance of mans understanding of the world around them. Agnosticism is the way to go, the universe may be a living active creator but to interpret its will and what you think it wants you to do is wrong it insinuates the idea of thought crime making you unable to question your ethics and making otherwise good meaning people do evil things. I believe we are naturally good and ethical as social herd/ pack animal creatures as we are omnivores but we care about each other on the whole I believe, and there is such thing as believing in something and having faith in something without an organized religion. You seem agnostic but your a dangerous agnostic "Intelligent design is not just an euphemism coined to slip creationism into public school classrooms. It is a succinct description of The Universe – moving in mysterious and purposeful ways." you honestly expect us to believe that we are buying anything your saying? "At this point, science gives way to personal beliefs. I have my own, but I am not one to expect others to think as I do. I leave that to organized religions." Unless we have a huge misunderstanding you have no problem with religion and don't see it as a danger, well it is, its very dangerous and manipulative and is causing a lot of problems we have today. I don't think religion is right and im in the minority but I wouldn't wish them any harm I would like to change there minds though.

The Casmir effect does not disprove everything we know about physics.

Newton's equations break down at the atomic level, and they do not explain the constant speed of light. But we still use them when we want to put a lander on Mars or a satellite into orbit. And for this, Newton's equations work quite well.

The laws of general relativity break down at the atomic level as well. And quantum mechanics is useless at planetary dimensions. Both work within their realm astonishing well. Predictions made by these theories are verified experimentally. The data matches the predictions every time.

Maxwell's equations lay the foundation for all of our electronic devices. The devices work. Try designing even the simplist one without them.

None of these are perfect in a unified explanation. Not one claims to be. That is what I like about science. It is falsifiable. If a better explanation comes along, the previous is dropped. Every theory has to be independently verifiable. The moment any scientist falsifies experiential data, (s)he is banished from the community. No one and no theory has resident claim to the truth

Quantom zero effect disproves everything we know about physics.
The Quanum zero effect does nothing of the kind. Science continues to examine and describe the universe around us. Things dtill fall off trees and you still cannot walk into walls

We can't explain black holes or how a sun flare 100 miles away from the sun burns over 1000% hotter than the surface of the sun, we can't explain a lot of things with our science but It is much more heinous to think that it is made by a man mad religions god or that it can be interpreted by any god on the planet, organized religion is sick and disgusting as well as beautiful and intriguing but it is a work of fiction and treating it as an acceptable way to base your entire life around is a breeding ground for

Whooah. Umm - Science is descriptive, it does not really concern itself with the WHY but the HOW. Science does a good job at identifying these things, and proposing tentative explanation by proposing underlying laws.

everything from war to slavery, from pedophilia to the hinderance of mans understanding of the world around them.

You seem to have strayed from Physics into theology and psychology.

Agnosticism is the way to go, the universe may be a living active creator but to interpret its will and what you think it wants you to do is wrong it insinuates the idea of thought crime

Hey - "agnosticism" is simply an admission of ignorance. "I don't know". it is not a way to go. It is an admission of failure.

making you unable to question your ethics and making otherwise good meaning people do evil things. I believe we are naturally good and ethical as social herd/ pack animal creatures as we are omnivores but we care about each other on the whole I believe, and there is such thing as believing in something and having faith in something without an organized religion.

Great, but I do not see the connection with Quantum Physics

You seem agnostic but your a dangerous agnostic "Intelligent design is not just an euphemism coined to slip creationism into public school classrooms. It is a succinct description of The Universe – moving in mysterious and purposeful ways."

Agnosticism and ID, as incompatible.

you honestly expect us to believe that we are buying anything your saying? "At this point, science gives way to personal beliefs. I have my own, but I am not one to expect others to think as I do. I leave that to organized religions." Unless we have a huge misunderstanding you have no problem with religion and don't see it as a danger, well it is, its very dangerous and manipulative and is causing a lot of problems we have today. I don't think religion is right and im in the minority but I wouldn't wish them any harm I would like to change there minds though.
SO who is this tirade directed at?

My original post on this sub-forum seemed to fit the concept of alternative religious beliefs – that God and the Universe are different names for the same entity. I remain surprised that the thread quickly erupted into a debate more suited to the “Science vs. Religion” sub-forum.

Ultimately, all we have are our personal belief systems – the agnostic who says I just don't know; the atheist, who “knows” that God does not exist; the true believer, who is certain that his or her personal version of God does exist; and last, but not least, the scientist, who believes only what can be demonstrated to exist or, at least, probably exist.

The scientist is, without a doubt, the most rational of these believers and non-believers. Theoretical science leads to applied science, for which I am appreciative every time I sit down to watch a movie on a blu-ray disc. Even science, however, must give way, at some point, to belief – belief in a theory. That boundary is pushed forward with every confirmation of a supposition, but the boundary will always be there.

As much as I like the title “dangerous agnostic,” I am neither dangerous nor an agnostic. I fully recognize the dangers of organized religions and its top-down management of followers' beliefs for its own benefit. The Crusades and Inquisition are two stand-out examples of religion gone terribly wrong.

Modern day religions have a relatively basic arrangement. True believers enjoy a social support structure of like-minded individuals and are promised eternal life, somewhat assuaging their fear of death. In exchange, religious organizations receive donations of time and money (mostly money) to maintain their infrastructures and to expand their market shares. Consequences of these outreach efforts have included continent-wide populations practicing non-indigent religions, as well as vast numbers of home dwellers who have become highly skilled at feigning absence whenever the doorbell rings unexpectedly.

I do not think that science and religion need to be at war.

The Quanum zero effect does nothing of the kind. Science continues to examine and describe the universe around us. Things dtill fall off trees and you still cannot walk into walls
Your going to sit there and tell me that science can explain everything now as is? There is a reason they call things theories because we haven't been able to prove them all we are still adapting them. Saying that you can explain everything through science is arrogant and pseudo intellectual
Stating that the quantum zero theory disproves everything is a bit of an exaggeration but we still haven't found the higgs boson that's also just a theory, sorry you took me way too literally

Whooah. Umm - Science is descriptive, it does not really concern itself with the WHY but the HOW. Science does a good job at identifying these things, and proposing tentative explanation by proposing underlying laws.
[b]Look at the thread and look at who I am directing it at then read the comments before you think I am in anyway primarily talking about science I am talking about someone else's opinion and how heinous it is to say you can explain everything through science because you can't its more heinous to look for ethical values by religiously following the concepts of religions instead of treating them as works of fiction and constructing your own theories on how you should act in an ethical way towards society.

You seem to have strayed from Physics into theology and psychology.

It was never about physics I'm trying to fit an essay into a paragraph just like I was trying to fit a research paper into an essay in my last thread, if you actually read the thread before [b]you opened your mouth then you would know that instead you attacked my argument without in any way paying attention to what had been said before so you had no context with which to comment on religion is philosophy on how to live life an ethics when it boils down to it that which involves psychology try to keep up.

Hey - "agnosticism" is simply an admission of ignorance. "I don't know". it is not a way to go. It is an admission of failure.
[u]It is in no way admission of failure I am saying that I do not believe in any man made religion but that there are things that cannot be explained in the universe and in life claiming to know everything or that you can figure anything out with absolute certainty is as black and white a way of looking at things as those who adhere to religion strictly. I have been through a lot personally and use psychology and philosophy to create my own way of life which is way different than an organized religion there is a spiritual nature to psychology and recovery. DBT therapy is based on Buddhism, the most effective addiction treatments is based on Christian ideas, but like I said I like the bible like I like the cat in the hat as works of fiction trying to espouse a moral message which is different then ethics and people take these texts way to seriously, but your religion is hard science and you fail to realize that, see the Stanford prison experiment and Milgrams book on the results of the dangers of obedience to authority and Intellegensia, you are an extremist outlier I would not be surprised if your a zeitgeist non participator.

Great, but I do not see the connection with Quantum Physics

[b]You don't have to I am obviously not talking about it am I

Agnosticism and ID, as incompatible.

Wow please don't comment at all, there is a theory called the god gene that says we are predisposed to believe, I am very spiritual and see everyone around me as an extension of myself they aren't incompatible, aside from that you really don't seem to understand what the ID is then which is the most primal part of the human mind but Psycho Analysis theories are deeply flawed just like Information Processing theories are discredited by theories like epigenetics. Your looking at it narrowly.


SO who is this tirade directed at?

[b]It was directed at REBerg who, from reading his latest post seems to think that organized religion makes most people happy and that it outweighs the destructive nature to the human mind and the physical world which I disagree with.

Maybe grasping onto science is your way of dealing with things in life but Nietzsche said religion was a crutch for the weak minded and was not only seen as a mild mannered cautious man who was paranoid but that he also went insane, syphilis is a rumor but people claim to create the myth from the man there is also another bullshit theory about cancer. The thing is that no one can ever know what they don't know and we can't explain everything especially some of the mind boggling fucked up things in the world that happen, looking at people like objects and trying to be objective all the time which is an impossible thing to do makes you dangerous, just as dangerous as scientists working on the A-Bomb

Your right RE, war and religion shouldn't be at war, religion needs to stay away from science because nothing in religion can explain what wrong in science, but science , soft science, philosophy and literature as well as actual history can all explain what is wrong with organized religion, just take what you need spiritualy haul in the groceries while hauling out the trash.

REberg said;":My original post on this sub-forum seemed to fit the concept of alternative religious beliefs – that God and the Universe are different names for the same entity. I remain surprised that the thread quickly erupted into a debate more suited to the “Science vs. Religion” sub-forum.
"
You are kidding aren't you??
You confuse two things, one is the thing religion is most concerned with, and the other, the thing science is most concerned with then you Say you are surprised when the conversation talks about science vs religion.

You mischaracterise Atheism, like most people. Atheism is not a claim of the sort :I know god does not exist.". As no one can "know" that a thing that does not exist. You are confused. Actaully some atheist are also confused. But that does not change the fact that Atheism is the absence of a particular sort of believe and needs no justification, and requires no knowledge in any sense.
Atheism does not involve me in any believe whatsoever.

To pickup,
I don't care who your thread was directed at, if what you say does not makes sense. This is not about taking sides, but about making useful an interesting comments for the consideration of others in the spirit of debate.
BTW. I love the diagram. It demonstrates an important effect of Christianity, though the implied claim that you can reduce scientific progress to a simple quantity is rather silly.
I would also place the 5thc and 6thC BC on a high, with the entire post Hellenic period and Roman period almost completely FLATLINING.

Haha your description of atheism is my description of being agnostic Hobbes

It does make sense, ask me about in a way that doesn't imply ad hominem

and defend yourself against my assertions in my reply rather than dismissing it because I think you don't understand my argument and you think you do but don't ask any questions about it at all which is kinda unscientific,

The theory or belief that God does not exist. = Atheism I am confused sir please tell me what doesn't make sense to you... @ Hobbes

"

quote:

---

Intelligent design is not just an euphemism coined to slip creationism into public school classrooms. It is a succinct description of The Universe – moving in mysterious and purposeful ways

---

."


This is why it erupted into a Reason versus Religion debate

Religion and Science are two very different beasts. One is faith based, the other empirical. They may not even belong in the same room. However, they are forced together because very real changes are being made by both that effect my life.

If a piece of religious based legislation passes because the majority in power subscribe, or pretend to subscribe, to that belief and value system -- I must abide by that or suffer society's consequences.

If science is implemented in a technology that is utilized, I again fall prey.

Nothing that happens in this world does not effect me or any of us. Therefore the debate.

thx ..... thanks

No, thanks to everyone here. Rough thread. Still, we have our work to do.

I would like to believe that there are people here who really are seeking the truth. Not to expound upon their ego's -- but find the ground beneath their feet.

None of us asked to be. But here we are. Now, we have to make sense of this whole thing. And we have to do this knowing that none of us are going to come out alive.

Don't know about you; but I feel if as an employer I was to put that in a job description in the classifieds -- no one would apply for the job. (Great travel benefits though...)

"The wages of sin is death." --Romans 6:23
Shit. I 'm underpaid.