Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 172 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Is there anybody out there?
by paul
12/07/19 03:58 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
True 1
paul 1
Page 67 of 120 < 1 2 ... 65 66 67 68 69 ... 119 120 >
Topic Options
#38219 - 04/24/11 07:38 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: redewenur]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Originally Posted By: Rev
So? Are you suggesting that the something was GOD?


Now, there's something I didn't suggest.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
.
#38221 - 04/25/11 12:28 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Bill S.]
redewenur Offline
Megastar

Registered: 02/14/07
Posts: 1840
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
It is generally accepted that time was created with the Universe

Not that we'll ever know for certain, of course, but that notion (from notables such as Stephen Hawking) has lost favour during the past decade.
_________________________
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler

Top
#38228 - 04/25/11 09:45 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: redewenur]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Originally Posted By: Rede
Not that we'll ever know for certain, of course, but that notion (from notables such as Stephen Hawking) has lost favour during the past decade.


Obviously I'm falling behind the times. What's the currend "flavour of the month"?
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#38231 - 04/26/11 12:43 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Bill S.]
redewenur Offline
Megastar

Registered: 02/14/07
Posts: 1840
There appear to be a number of flavours right now; take your pick. I recommend BBC Horizon (2010) "What Happened Before the Big Bang". You can watch it in 6 parts on YouTube. Here's the link to part 1:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bGx3UB-Slg&feature=related
_________________________
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler

Top
#38235 - 04/26/11 04:11 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: redewenur]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Originally Posted By: redewenur
I mean there's a wealth of info relating to a vast bank of accumulated observational and experimental data which, supported by rigorous mathematical physics, has transformed the Big Bang from a highly speculative model into a very sound theory.
Interestingly, it was the Belgian and Jesuit priest FATHER GEORGE LEMAITRE--a master of "rigorous mathematical physics", who was the father of the BB theory. Ironically, the name "Big Bang" was coined by Fred Hoyle, an atheist who was the originator of the "steady state" theory. He described, wrongly, as it turns out to be, a universe having no beginning and no end.

Lemaitre spoke more about a Cosmic egg, or the Primeval Atom, multiplying--an idea that I like. This prompts the question: Who, or what, was there that generated the first egg, or atom?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
Quote:
At this time, Einstein, while not taking exception to the mathematics of Lemaître's theory, refused to accept the idea of an expanding universe; Lemaître recalled him commenting "Vos calculs sont corrects, mais votre physique est abominable" ("Your math is correct, but your physics is abominable.")

The same year, Lemaître returned to MIT to present his doctoral thesis on The gravitational field in a fluid sphere of uniform invariant density according to the theory of relativity. Upon obtaining the PhD, he was named Ordinary Professor at the Catholic University of Louvain. He was a great advocate of using the computer to do mathematics.

In 1930, Eddington published in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society a long commentary on Lemaître's 1927 article, in which he described the latter as a "brilliant solution" to the outstanding problems of cosmology. The original paper was published in an abbreviated English translation in 1931, along with a sequel by Lemaître responding to Eddington's comments.

Lemaître was then invited to London in order to take part in a meeting of the British Association on the relation between the physical Universe and spirituality. There he proposed that the Universe expanded from an initial point, which he called the "Primeval Atom" and developed in a report published in Nature. Lemaître himself also described his theory as "the Cosmic Egg exploding at the moment of the creation"; it became better known as the "Big Bang theory," a term coined by Fred Hoyle.


Edited by Revlgking (04/26/11 06:57 PM)
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#38239 - 04/27/11 02:42 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Revlgking]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
question: Who, or what, was there that generated the first egg, or atom?


Why are religious people always trying to clutch onto scientific theories that seem to fit into their made-up beliefs? Just accept that a made-up belief has no need to find any connection to the real world - that's why you have freedom to make it up in the first place!

Nobody was there! If you suspect a person or some alien might have been there at the big bang, then you also need to give similar weight to the possibility that a bicycle was there. Maybe we need to ponder what color bicycle it could have been, as well as the name of the creature riding it. See how silly it is to just make things up?

It really means nothing that Lemaitre was a priest and Hoyle an atheist. You love throwing empty words around to try to fool people don't you? I find that preference for word games over understanding to be a bit off-putting. The part about trying to fool people is very disgusting, especially when the reader is disarmed by jokes and a pleasant personality.

Top
#38243 - 04/27/11 03:10 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: kallog]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Kallog asks, rhetorically:
Originally Posted By: kallog
Why are religious people always trying to clutch onto scientific theories that seem to fit into their made-up beliefs?

See how silly it is to just make things up?

You love throwing empty words around to try to fool people, don't you?
And comments, sarcastically
Originally Posted By: kallog
The part about trying to fool people is very disgusting, especially when the reader is disarmed by jokes and a pleasant personality.
KALLOG'S QUESTIONS? AND MY RESPONSES:
Quote:
Why are religious people always trying to clutch onto scientific theories that seem to fit into their made-up beliefs?

I love exploring new and godly ideas. Doesn't everyone? I also love knowing about the generators, organizers and developers of them, including positive and thoughtful atheists.

See how silly it is to just make things up?

Not as silly as rhetorical questions and put-downs.

You love throwing empty words around to try to fool people, don't you?

I do? News to me! Not what I call a respectful (agape-like) comment. Neither is the following:

The part about trying to fool people is very disgusting, especially when the reader is disarmed by jokes and a pleasant personality.

Now for my rhetorical question: Is being grouchy a good way to encourage others to join the dialogue? smile


Edited by Revlgking (04/27/11 03:17 PM)
Edit Reason: Always a good idea!
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#38247 - 04/27/11 05:40 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Revlgking]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Made up beliefs; empty words; jocular deception; grouchiness and a seasoning of ad hominem sniping - and this is one of the longest threads on the forum.

I begin to see what is needed! If Rev could introduce GOD, and Kallog respond with a vitriolic put-down, "the divided universe" might yet get off the launch pad. smile
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#38269 - 04/30/11 06:54 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Revlgking]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
Rev. I wasn't trying to be rude, but just saying what irritates me. You seem to want to share this idea about GOD, but consistently dodge explaining it. Instead getting sidetracked by the history of a word or somebody else's belief. I asked many times but you never quite put the picture together, or properly defended criticism.

How about be honest enough to acknowledge it as a fantasy? Plenty of fiction authors have done the same, and people enjoy their work, even getting inspiration from them to guide their real lives.

Top
#38272 - 05/01/11 04:12 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: kallog]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Originally Posted By: kallog
... How about being honest enough to acknowledge it as a fantasy? Plenty of fiction authors have done the same, and people enjoy their work, even getting inspiration from them to guide their real lives
fan·ta·sy –noun
1.
imagination, especially when extravagant and unrestrained.
2.
the forming of mental images, especially wondrous or strange fancies; imaginative conceptualizing.
3.
a mental image, especially when unreal or fantastic; vision: a nightmare fantasy.
=============================
If you want to think of a god who is a fantasy as defined above, go ahead.

GOD, for me, is not a noun. This is why I use all caps.
=========
I speak only for myself when I say: For me, GOD is not A human-like being at all--imagined, fantasized or otherwise. GOD is ALL Being, that which, like ultimate reality, is as real as life itself. GOD is all Being--evolving ad infinitum.

At the same time we are, if we so choose, evolving within GOD. Have you read the links I gave to Dr. A.N. Whitehead--a great mathematician and philosopher, and the Rev. Charles Hartshorne--who write about about process theology?

My definition is my definition; I do not impose it on others. It is not a fixed position. Like in science, philosophy and art, I also leave room for imagination, growth and new ideas.


Edited by Revlgking (05/01/11 04:17 AM)
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#38281 - 05/01/11 09:08 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Revlgking]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Kallog: Ignore the above post. Read the following one better organized.

Originally Posted By: kallog
Rev. I wasn't trying to be rude..."
Good! And your gracious thought gives me the opportunity to define what I mean by 'GOD'--what, BTW, 1 John 4 means when John writes, "God is love"--agape in Greek. Trying to do what is good is what it means to be GOD-like.

GOD-like
This also gives me the opportunity to say: You are forgiven. If I were not a GOD-like person I would try to think up ways to get even--the kind of thinking that causes inner stress, family stress, community stress often leading to vicious crimes of passion including civil and international wars.

And DOG-like
IMO, all wars, past and present, including all the current wars in the Middle East, and elsewhere, are rooted in what I call DOG-like thinking (D stands for diabolic, divisive, and damning thinking; O stands for odious, ominous, oppressive thinking and G stand for garrulous, gruesome, gloomy, graceless and gluttonous thinking.

Of course I acknowledge that there are dog-lovers and good dogs. Therefore, I am thankful that there are good masters and good dogs who are obviously GOD-like.

You say, "...but just saying what irritates me. You seem to want to share this idea about GOD..." I like sharing GOD-like ideas like: It is better to light a candle than curse the darkness. If you don't like my ideas, just say so. Then give us your ideas.

PICTURING GOD
You add "I asked many times but you never quite put the picture together, or properly defended criticism." And now I am trying to answer.

You say, "How about being honest enough to acknowledge it as a fantasy? Plenty of fiction authors have done the same, and people enjoy their work, even getting inspiration from them to guide their real lives."

If this is what atheists believe god IS--a mental idol created by the imagination--no wonder there are atheists. If god is just a fantasy, count me as an atheist, too!

Gods, no matter how pretty to look at, created with the mind and the imagination, are idols. Idol worship happens when we create gods in our own image. Having said this, I am willing to accept that what we experience with the senses--the cosmos, physical reality, which I feel is very malleable--can be looked on as the body of GOD.

But let us not forget the human and divine mental and spiritual dimensions. The mind and the spirit have played, do play, and will continue to play an important role in the whole process we call evolution.

Of course there are people who say they believe in God, who go to church and do all mostly useless praying and ritual that goes with it. But unless they live GOD-like lives, they are hypocrites.

Let all good people join together and attack the hypocrisies--This is why Jesus, who really lived a GOD-like life, taught that it is best even to love our enemies. Nameste! That is, GOD around, in and through all that is, including us. smile
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#38282 - 05/02/11 03:31 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Revlgking]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Kallog, the moderator was able to help me re-organize the post above. Therefore. the note about ignoring it post is irrelevant.

I just found this quote, below. Interesting:

"That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a Superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God" - Albert Einstein
Einstein makes the point that, like the second commandment says--Do not make and worship graven images--a god who can be explained, described and defined in physical terms is not a god at all, but an idol.
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#38283 - 05/02/11 04:08 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Revlgking]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
I speak only for myself when I say: For me, GOD is not A human-like being at all--imagined, fantasized or otherwise. GOD is ALL Being, that which, like ultimate reality, is as real as life itself. GOD is all Being--evolving ad infinitum.

That's self-contradictory. If it's real for you but not others then it's not really real. That's a characteristic of fantasies, or fantasies that people believe in (as opposed to Lord of the Rings). If you said GOD is real, but other people don't recognize it, that would be fine in itself. But it would open you up to all sorts of accusations of arrogance.


Quote:
philosophy and art, I also leave room for imagination, growth and new ideas.

I've shown a particular place where you have room to improve the idea. That's the distinction between GOD and nature. I'm still looking for a clear difference. I suspect you aren't quite sure of that yourself.

Top
#38284 - 05/02/11 04:19 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Revlgking]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
This also gives me the opportunity to say: You are forgiven. If I were not a GOD-like person I would try to think up ways to get even

Forgiven? For what? You know it's insulting to forgive somebody who did nothing wrong.

Quote:

And DOG-like
IMO, all wars, past and present, including all the current wars in the Middle East, and elsewhere, are rooted in what

OK, no need to go over that again. I'm quite clear on that aspect of your idea. As well as going to church, assigning physical properties to God, etc.



Quote:
I like sharing GOD-like ideas like: It is better to light a candle than curse the darkness.

What darkness? Science keeps lighting more and more candles. And they're illuminating realistic things, not just painting pictures to comfort us with the illusion of knowing when we don't really.


Quote:

Gods, no matter how pretty to look at, created with the mind and the imagination, are idols. Idol worship happens

That's what your GOD is. Yours is very pretty to look at because of it being uncluttered by books full of its words.
Just saying that your GOD is part(or all) of nature doesn't excuse it from being an idol. It's like me saying "I worship my bicycle, it is God". That's not created with my imagination, it's a real thing. But it's also just a bicycle. Similarly, the universe is just the universe, claiming that it's also GOD is making it into an idol.

Top
#38287 - 05/02/11 01:18 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: kallog]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Kallog misspeaks again:
Quote:
Just saying that your GOD is part(or all) of nature doesn't excuse it from being an idol. It's like me saying "I worship my bicycle, it is God". That's not created with my imagination, it's a real thing. But it's also just a bicycle. Similarly, the universe is just the universe, claiming that it's also GOD is making it into an idol.
Kallog, it is a conundrum to me as to why you continually take my words and twist them. Are you practicing to be obtuse? Why are you saying that I am a pantheist?

Kallog, I am a UNITHEIST. I have said several times: UNITHEISM is the same as PANENTHEISM--as described by described by the Rev. Charles Hartshorne and based on the process philosophy and theology of the philosopher and mathematician A.N. Whitehead. Nature is IN GOD, not the other way round!

If you refuse to understand this, and to give the moderators an acceptable reason as to why you twist my words, I will have to walk away and no longer have a dialogue with you.


Edited by Revlgking (05/02/11 05:39 PM)
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#38288 - 05/02/11 05:02 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Revlgking]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
ON FACEBOOK, I JUST PUBLISHED A NOTE LIKE THE FOLLOWING
=======================================================
See my signature below www.unitheist.org For unitheists, GOD is not a being, or a thing to be named and understood, but the mysterious ONEness which we call total reality--physically mentally and spiritually. GOD is an acronym for G--goodness O--omnipotence & D--divinely desirable truth, justice, peace and prosperity for all, including people with and without a formal kind of faith, or religion.
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#38292 - 05/03/11 09:34 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Revlgking]
redewenur Offline
Megastar

Registered: 02/14/07
Posts: 1840
Patience Rev, patience. You appear to be cornered by Kallog's emphasis on the rational in this dialogue, but that's hardly a good reason to walk away from it. There have been unpleasant comments on both sides, but I'd expect you of all people to turn the other cheek, and not respond in (un)kind.
_________________________
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler

Top
#38293 - 05/03/11 11:06 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Revlgking]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
Why are you saying that I am a pantheist?

I didn't notice the distinction till now.

So is it like this?:
- The universe is part of GOD.
- GOD also includes other things that aren't part of the universe.

Those other things must be fantasies, unlike the universe part which we can observe. But I want to know how GOD interacts with people. And what capabilities it lacks. I think it has no consciousness, but what else?

Quote:

G--goodness O--omnipotence & D--divinely desirable truth, justice, peace and prosperity for all

That suggests consciousness. Is that the part that's outside the universe?


Edited by kallog (05/03/11 11:10 AM)

Top
#38294 - 05/03/11 02:12 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: kallog]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Originally Posted By: kallog
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
Why are you saying that I am a pantheist?
I didn't notice the distinction till now.
Good! Glad you noticed. Paying respectful attention to what others are really saying, plus having a dialogue--not just debating to win points--usually leads to real communication. You ask
Quote:
So is it like this?:
- The universe is part of GOD.
Without any claim to being an infallible scientist, I would say, Yes!
Quote:
- GOD also includes other things that aren't part of the universe.
I agree and would add: As the universe expands into space (GOD) new "things" will come into being as things.
Quote:
Those other things must be fantasies, unlike the universe part which we can observe.
The ability to imagine, as it were, to fantasize, is a very human and great ability. Good science usually involves people--Like Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Spinoza, Einstein, Whitehead, Jung, for example--who loved to fantasize.
Quote:
But I want to know how GOD interacts with people.
Now pay attention! IMO (I assume you know the meaning of this acronym, right?) I interact with GOD with every breath I take, my senses, my imagination, my thinking, and with every thought, word and deed.

GOD is that which is within anyone who wills GOD to be within. We have this amazing gift: free will. Therefore, of my own free will: I use this gift to to include GOD in all that I imagine, think, say know and do. It would be foolish of me to will otherwise.

BTW, IMO, Jesus was the first, or one of the first, to realize human beings can have this wonderful gift. Nowhere did Jesus ever say: I am the Son of (same as) GOD and others are not. It is simply a matter of being willing to be GOD-filled.

For example, read John 10:34 and John 17:20 ..., carefully. What do you think this means?
Quote:
And what capabilities it lacks. I think it has no consciousness, but what else?
IMO, the consciousness is within us. Like I said: G--goodness O--omnipotence & D--divinely desirable truth, justice, peace and prosperity for all. As you said
Quote:
That suggests consciousness. Is that the part that's outside the universe?
YES! and inside, too--as quantum physicists are beginning to discover. It seems that what some ancient philosophers and theologians fantasized about is now becoming a physical and scientific reality.


Edited by Revlgking (05/03/11 03:33 PM)
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#38299 - 05/04/11 02:45 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Revlgking]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
interact with GOD with every breath I take, my senses, my imagination, my thinking, and with every thought, word and deed.

Sure. But that's automatically true if you define GOD as including the universe. Every person interacts with the universe all the time.

Quote:

my own free will: I use this gift to to include GOD in all

It can't be a choice, otherwise it's not real. Or are you saying GOD specifically communicates with people who choose to include it in their thoughts? That must be the in-universe part of GOD. But that means it's something more than just atoms floating in space.

Quote:

G--goodness O--omnipotence & D--divinely desirable truth, justice, peace and prosperity for all. As you said

The consciousness is in us, and what about those other things? Clearly we're not omnipotent. I think some are for people and some are not for people.

Quote:
quantum physicists are beginning to discover. It

I'm sure your idea doesn't depend on the latest scientific discoveries. I'm not interested in extra bits that add to the story, I want to understand the fundamentals of the idea.

I also wonder how grey areas like 'justice' can be handled by GOD. Surely it doesn't give humans more rights than animals, any more than it surely doesn't give whites more rights than blacks, or men more than women. So does it include justice for animals? How does it manage animals eating each other?

Top
Page 67 of 120 < 1 2 ... 65 66 67 68 69 ... 119 120 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.