Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including,

I like M theroy better.

I am a full fledged believer in God. As for ecology being the body of God, we were put on Earth to worship God and tend the garden. I would no sooner worship the Earth itself then I would the sun.

Yes, I would agree with Revlgking when he said, "GOD does NOT exist as a being; GOD is existence as I experience it, and is as real as our next breath (The Bible uses air as a metaphor for spirit)."
Perhaps everyone's definition of God is different. For some he is the one sitting on a throne with long hair looking down upon us, others is the world itself, others is a baseball, others is nothing, and everything. Perhaps not existing in the physical realm, but there is something else surely out there. Active or passive, wise or foolish, omnisicient or unskilled, he is there. And he is not there. He is, he is not.
And yes, this could go in a science forum because we are trying to know or discern something, as the route of the latin word we get science means.

Nah. Even though if you ask me I will tell you that I am Christian and believe full body in the Bible it goes beyond that and is worthy of discussion on a science forum.

Take M theory. That says there are 11 dimensions? God is that which exists on all dimensions simultaneously. What's that theory about time, that all choices that can be made are made in parallel universes? I don't believe that idea is correct but for me God is that which can see all possibilities and directs life to his desire. Forever the artist painting the picture of life. The creator did not just throw the bucket of paint on the wall and say perfect. Creation was not just a singular process but life itself.

Let there be light! Not a magician’s trick, now you see it, now you don’t. Creation was birthed out of a tremendous force of will. God’s will. And we were created in God’s image. Not a being of two legs and two arms etc but creators of life. Eternal beings that are a part of the very fabric of existence changing the very nature of that existence though our force of will. Observing the particle changes it.

Thanks. Above, there is lots of grist for the mill of thought. Thanks for agreeing to offer your sincere thoughts. This is fun when we agree to dialogue and to disagree, agreeably.

scpg02, what is M theory?
You say you agree to "tend the garden", right? I agree; it is a good idea.

Where did I say: We are here to worship the garden, ecologically? Please, do not put doctrines in my head which I do not offer. Ecology is about: Tending the garden. Got it?

Tim: I like the way you put things.

M-theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In physics, M-theory (sometimes also called U-theory) is a proposed "master theory" that unifies the five superstring theories. Drawing on the work from a number of string theorists (including Chris Hull, Paul Townsend, Ashoke Sen, Michael Duff and John H. Schwarz), Edward Witten of the Institute for Advanced Study suggested its existence at a conference at USC in 1995, and used M-theory to explain a number of previously observed dualities, sparking a flurry of new research in string theory called the second superstring revolution.

In the early 1990s, it was shown that the various superstring theories were related by dualities, which allow physicists to relate the description of an object in one string theory to the description of a different object in another theory. These relationships imply that each of the string theories is a different aspect of a single underlying theory, proposed by Witten, and named "M-theory".

M-theory is not yet complete; however it can be applied in many situations (usually by exploiting string theoretic dualities). The theory of electromagnetism was also in such a state in the mid-19th century; there were separate theories for electricity and magnetism and, although they were known to be related, the exact relationship was not clear until James Clerk Maxwell published his equations, in his 1864 paper A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field. Witten has suggested that a general formulation of M-theory will probably require the development of new mathematical language. However, some scientists have questioned the tangible successes of M-theory given its current incompleteness, and limited predictive power, even after so many years of intense research.

Introduction to M-theory
Essier read.

If I recall correctly without going back and rereading all of this, instead of the singularity of the big bang you have to membranes that ripple. Where they touch is where you get your "big bang" or a universe. This allows for multiple universes as well as the membranes would touch in more than one spot.

I am an advocate of ecology. I think of Nature as the body of GØD.- Revlgking Post #22393

Sounds interesting, to me. I always keep my mind open to the latest findings of moral, ethical, loving and well-motivated scientists.

Keep in mind: I believe in education, not in indoctrination. In the face of new evidence I am not afraid to change my mind.

What is your point?

Are you implying that nature is foreign to the one you call God? Note this: I did not say: Nature IS God. That is pantheism. I am a unitheist, or panentheist. Check it out in Wikepedia.

BTW, did you know that our word 'worship' is simply a contraction of our words 'worth' and 'ship'?

You said nature was the body of God therefor implying that nature is God. Nature, is God's creation not God.

My body is not me; I have a body, but it is only a reflection of who I am. IMHO--I always like to use this expression to try to avoid being dogmatic about these difficult concepts--

--God (I'll use your spelling) has a body. As you put it: it is his creation. Even Jesus referred to "bread"(part of nature) as: "This is my body..."
IMO, God ecompasses ALL things, including nature.I always point this out in dialogues I have with atheists when they ask me for evidence of God. I always say: Open your senses, see, hear, take a breath (spirit). The Psalmist puts it: "The heavens declare the glory (the splendid character) of God..." Isn't the earth, and all nature on it, part of the heavens?

BTW, It is perfectly okay to disagree with me, just as long as we treat one another according to 1 Corinthians 13---"Love is kind..."

ABOUT PANENTHEISM, OR UNITHEISM, AS I LIKE TO CALL IT

Revlgking asked:

"why do atheists always avoid defining for me what they mean when they use the term 'God'"?

Hang on Rev. How do you expect us to define something we don't believe exists? Even people who do accept there is a God can't agree on a definition. As Tim said, "everyone's definition of God is different. For some he is the one sitting on a throne with long hair looking down upon us, others is the world itself, others is a baseball, others is nothing, and everything. Perhaps not existing in the physical realm".

Which of these definitions would you like us atheists to define as being the one we don't believe in?

TerryN: Recently, over the CBC (Canada's public radio) I heard Richard Dawkins, Author of, "The God Delusion" discuss what he hoped to accomplish by writing his book.

He gave an excellent and detailed interview about his latest thinking and sounded quite calm and rational. Not once was he nearly as strident as he came off in his book.

Others who responded to his comments noted this. He said: "I would love to sit down and have a calm dialogue with clergy and lay monotheists and discuss what we all mean when we discuss the god-concept..."

He must have had some idea of god in mind, or he would not have bothered raising the issue. Not once did he say: "Discussing theology and people's concept of God is a waste of time; I can't be bothered talking about such nonsense. It is like talking about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin." BTW, the latter was Bertrand Russell's position. Is this yours?

You say you don't believe God exists. Agreed?

Is it too much for me to ask you: Define what you mean by "exists". In what way does God NOT exist? Are you thinking strickly in three-dimensional terms, or what? What is existence?

There is documentation for a precognitive collective consciousness. I can’t remember what it was they were measuring but it changes dramatically right before events such as 9/11.

Revlgking wrote: "I believe in education, not in indoctrination."
So do I. Being educated would seem to imply learning something without dogmatism and propoganda while presenting something as most likely the truth. Sadly in the public schools of America, this not done. Now I realize this is tangent.
But to answer Revlgking's question:
Yes, I beleive in a God, although I have not the authority to say he "exists" in three dimensions. Perhaps he does, perhaps not. Perhaps he is everything, perhaps nothing. None of us knwows, and we should not pretend that we do due to "scientific" explanations and such. We simply do not know all that there is lurking in this vast void we call the universe. And to me that seems a rational and irrational explanation of the matter depending on your point of view.

"He must have had some idea of god in mind, or he would not have bothered raising the issue. Not once did he say: "Discussing theology and people's concept of God is a waste of time; I can't be bothered talking about such nonsense. It is like talking about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin."

Notice, however, that the discussion is taking place in a broadcasting station and not in the pages of IEEE Spectrum or Nature or Home and Gardening, for that matter.

"why do atheists always avoid defining for me what they mean when they use the term 'God'"?
Because that is potentially an endless subject.
"Well, what if god had blue eyes?"
No, I don't believe such a god exists.
"Well ... what if God had red eyes and a blue tongue."
No.
"What if god had no god or corporeal form?"
no.
"What if god was EVERYTHING?"
Why use such a loaded term as god to describe a common concept?
"But what if god is just the good stuff?"
and so on...

Tim
Subject: Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, include...

Tim, writes
Excellent!

Tim, in allowing for the mystery in all of nature, it looks like you and I are on the same wave length.

IMHO--my humble opinion--there is more to GOD than three-dimensional and material nature (3DN) but surely, if GOD includes all things, GOD is at least that.

GOD AS A DIAMOND WITH AN INFINITE NUMBER OF FACETS
Think of GOD as a diamond with an infinite number of facets capable of reflecting light and colour in an infinite variety of forms and colours, including that which is visible, and invisible, to the naked eye. It is not by accident that the Bible speaks of God as the source of all light.

Without being able to see all the facets and all the colours of the diamond, at the same time, I know that the whole diamond is there, because of the outline and the few facets that I can see.

Or think of the world's oceans. I have only travelled in two of them--the Atlantic and the Pacific. Of these two, I only know very little. But I know the whole oceans are there, because of the small area I do know.

GOD is such an inclusive concept, I am convinced that GOD even includes those who say I do not believe in GOD. After all, do birds have to believe in air to take flight? Do fish have to believe in water to swim? IMHO, air and water, like light are facets of GOD.

AIR, LIKE LIGHT, IS A FACET OF GOD
This is why I usually ask atheists: If you really don't believe in the breath of life--IMHO, another facet of GOD--why do you keep on breathing the pneuma (Spirit) of GOD.

In John 4:24, Jesus tells the Samaritan woman, "God is Spirit'. The NT Greek for Spirit is 'pneuma', which also means air, wind or breath. From 'pneuma' we get words like pneumatic, pneumonia and pneumatology--the study of air, wind, breath and spirit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pneumatology

Keep in mind that materialism is fairly modern phenomena. The ancient thinkers made little or no division between body, mind and spirit. Perhaps modern physicists are bringing us back to this way of thinking--LIFE AS A UNIFIED FIELD. And life, for me, is another facet of GOD.

TFF, I presume you write as an atheist. However, you say the following with which I agree: I presume you are having fun with the rest of your nonsense comments, which I hope we can agree makes about as much sense as does the Bible when it tells us that God "walked in the Garden of Eden" and that he made a talking snake (Genesis 3:1) which Eve blamed for tricking her into disobeying God.

BTW, I try not to objectify or to localize the GOD-concept, in any way shape or form. As GOD includes breath and life, how's your breathing and living going?