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

Interesting read Rev K.

Your religion is what I would call very science progressive I am not sure Paul for example would so readily accept such views.

I would also as a scientist say I have no science issues with that religious view although for me at a deeper level I am missing a lot of why's.

Why is there evil, why is there suffering, what is the purpose of all this that is why did GOD make us etc.

Now I am not a dreamer I realize many of those no religion ever answers but the discussion seemed to avoid it all totally.

Questions, like yours, which like: "Why...?" are all about find meaning and purpose for and about life. They area very useful part of any sincere conversation, or dialogue.

Thanks for them, Orac,! And keep on conversing and I feel that you will find what is true, for you.

IMO, Jesus really said: The kingdom of G~Õ~D is within.

G~Õ~D is that which Generates, Organizes & Delivers--from within.

That would be a lack in the experience of God.
When God is idolized as an ideal, then the causes of suffering are idealized.
God is good, satan is bad.
God does all the good stuff, Satan does all the bad stuff.

If you belong to a church, you are more likely to be good, as defined by religion.

If Good is aligned with God and definable, then so can God be defined.

I wonder if the Reverends latest book interest discusses evolution within parameters of time.
If you think of time being relative to the expansion of God, then in the beginning there might have been less God, since there was so little goodness and godlike presence within society. No church in the beginning, no Bible, no saints...

So now with evolution, the church can idealize the possibility that man might avoid self destruction, plague or even a celestial disaster such as a collision with a giant meteor to produce a greater wisdom and experience of the Universe and Universal mind. Man grows as does God within man and the universe to become more God-like.
Of course the outline of the godly personalities will help steer the course and direct man to perform and fit in.

Perhaps within the theories of time in quantum physics, instead of time progressing from a past toward a future, a future calls events toward its probable outcome? All events past and present are the results of a future that exists in what is called the now pulling events into reality. God then having a need for suffering, death, or all the things that are labeled as evil, in order to give contrast to a greater idealism and experience of humanity.

After all, In duality you can't have light without dark, hot without cold, or good without evil, right?

Perhaps religion sees a day when all of the opposites will cease to exist within reality and all there is, is God.

Question is, will you have to die to get there or is all that is God here and now,... or evolving?


I wonder if the reverends within, is subjectively isolated from creation?

Religion wouldn't be religion if there wasn't a need to idealize something better than ones own gripes in order to separate God from the personal reality, when it fails to meet Gods standards as defined by the church. Or the personal opinion when it sits right for you.

You realize that is completely erroneous well over 80% of the USA prison population identifies as religious which almost matches exactly the 73-76% of USA that view themselves as religious.

So at least in USA belonging to a church makes you no more or less likely to be good if you define that as being a criminal.

It seems to be one of the other things it is easier to say you are religious than to act appropriately ... (Paul )




That is a poor QM explaination it would be all the possibilities simultaneously exist which depending on choices
will decohere to your reality. We don't deny freedom of choice in QM

Orac, because I do not trust the BIG EGO--the one who calls herself/himself, TT--I now assume that all explanations given from that source, are, what you call "poor" ones, OK!

If you need evidence for what I just said, send Kate--a helpful moderator, BTW--and me, a private message.Then we can have a positive and useful dialogue

Kate--thank G~Õ~D, will then fill all of us in on: who all of us EGOTISTS, including me, are, OK!

Everything is relative, isn't it. Doesn't stop religionists from defining God and what is godlike.
Depends on whether you have repented and have found grace within the church to be forgiven by both God and the church in order to guarantee a spot in the afterlife.

What is appropriate. Do I act appropriately?
If you asked the reverend, he already says no.


It's not an explanation of QM or time, its a segue. Sorry it seemed inappropriate. You and the Reverend could have a private conversation with a moderator to complain about all inappropriate behavior that seems to take the good out of life. Tho you better find a moderator that takes sides. One of them was supposed to take this thread down a couple of months ago. That one probably is not on the Reverends good side. I think he likes Kate now...
Sorry a bit off topic..
Being that all possibilities do exist, obviously the way we experience reality is within the realm of singular expressions within a diverse group, along a timeline that allows for what appears as a progressive experience.
Where does it start? At the beginning or at the end, or right now? With free will and infinite possibilities we should be able to change our past as easily as we change or future thru or present choices.
Some interesting thoughts about the infinite potential and evolution:
Does evolution move towards a possible outcome set in the potential of all possibilities based on choice? If so then who's?
Does the outcome randomly come about from nothing based on our choices that have nothing behind them, or do the choices themselves come from the infinite potential of possible futures? (Obviously in order to invent the wheel, man tapped into what could exist, since the possibility existed before it was conceived and manifested.)
When I say the first humans had nothing behind them, what I suggest is that logically the first humans had nothing to draw from other than what they experienced. What they surmised from nothing and a lack of experience was made up or conceived and identified how? They just made sh*t up? IF so, what has changed?
How did any direction come about to lead to an expanding or evolutionary path that evolved from choice, unless it was random, chaotic and by chance happened to come together within a time period that allowed man to evolve rather than to die out? Is there something within the Universe and the DNA of man that is similar, in that it directs evolution to an end, or just to another experience? Is there an end? Religion thinks so, and now the Reverends new book interest seems to think Religion and Science are seeking similar insight to a beginning and an end?
Obviously the infinite wouldn't be so infinite if it came to an end.

We meaning science or scientists? What about certain predetermined closed systems such as those theorized around DNA, evolution and the like? Are you saying we have a freedom of choice in how humanity and the Universe will evolve, or just how we will choose to see how the Universe and all that is in it,is?
What I suggest doesn't take anything away from freedom of choice, but it will place certain qualities of choice within the structure and limitations of Ego (relative boundaries), and that of something greater than the individual ego as a moderator between what one sees as a beginning and an ending. Perceptions of reality in that something begins from one point in time, rather than in all points in time will affect the way one looks at evolution, and even choice.

Evidently Kate has been labeled as an inside source to the quality and identification of egotists according to the Reverend?

How about it Kate? You and the Reverend like to talk about who is who and whether they are worthy of your opinions in secret?

The reverend has spoken often of his conversations with the moderators whenever he writes me a personal message complaining about how he doesn't like the way individuals play in his sandbox.
It's always reminded me of a child running to the teacher or to mom to complain about having hurt feelings. "MOM... TT did it again! He talked to me and came to my forum!!"

Obviously the Reverend is sensitive and not forgiving, but then that is an historic emotional trait of the Church and religion.
"Kill all those who don't think and act like we want them to as good god fearing individuals," was the motto during the crusades and the Spanish inquisition.

It's always one thing to preach Gods love, and another to live it. Isn't it Reverend?

Obviously being an octogenarian doesn't cure one of childish hissy fits..

Freedom of choice is one of those tricky things there is no shades of gray possible .. if we remove the idea of illusion or deception of freedom of choice and talk about strict real freedom of choice.

If there is no freedom of choice then you have a predestined fate and you are nothing more than an animal in a zoo, a plaything for a god or some other controlling logic. Life is pretty meaningless if that is the case and why even bother thinking about it just do whatever you feel like because there are no consequences as it is all planned and you will do what was intended for you to do. From a religious point of view that seems a bit strange you are evil because god wants you to be so Hitler and all the mass murders etc are gods fault?

Even for religion I think you have to free up real freedom of choice somehow or else who gives a dam about anything why even bother having commandments, rules and worshipping etc.




That is just shuffling the chairs around on the discussion.

The key point of freedom of choice is defiance especially in a religious sense .. can you defy GOD ... that defines freedom of choice in this matter. Now GOD can decide to punish you or even remove you from the face of the planet but in someway an omnipotent GOD has to deliberately stop his all knowing to allow you freedom of choice.

That is what is tricky about freedom of choice for an omnipotent god ... either god can't be omnipotent just very potent or GOD deliberately exempts humans from his omnipotence.

You can't talk around that problem it's not a understanding issue it's a black and white problem.

You're basing this idea on what?

How would you separate illusion from reality in order to present freedom of choice as a constant.
So back to my question.

Are you saying we have a freedom of choice in how humanity and the Universe will evolve, or just how we will choose to see how the Universe and all that is in it,is?





No, it's more like altering viewpoints, rather than rearranging the room and while stagnating within one idea as the only reality.

No that only presupposes some kind of authority outside of any choice, rather than defining what is Freedom or choice. Why are you using this religious slant as a starting point to define choice, where it comes from, and what it can affect?
What is God, and what does God have to do with anything?

Orac, take care!

I assume you know how to send me a PM--a personal message, right?--If so, please send me one. If not, let me know.

In my PM I will tell you how that: BIG ego as I am--I learned, long ago--how to recognize troll-like BIG egos and to ignore them.

It saved me a lot of time, I could have wasted, but didn't--thank GOD! Or as I like to write it, G~Õ~D.

Slant??? It's not a slant it's a basic property of GOD and you are trying to dance around the issue.

GOD is OMNIPOTENT according to religion ..... ergo NO freedom of choice unless you modify something.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence ... item number 5


5.Every action performed in the world is 'actually' being performed by the deity, either due to omni-immanence, or because all actions must be 'supported' or 'permitted' by the deity.


Doesn't get much more clear than that if GOD is omnipotent you have no freedom of choice you can't have.


These aren't definitions I am making up they are stock standard definitions ... if you believe something different about GOD and it's power is in some way limited so you do have freedom of choice you will need to explain it. I don't know what your version of GOD is or is not capable of so I have used the standard definition.

That is why we are discussing GOD in this context because I am curious what you believe and how you reconcile the problem. I know the muslim religion version of this very well but I am less familiar with other religions.


It is a stock standard problem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_free_will

=>The argument from free will (also called the paradox of free will, or theological fatalism) contends that omniscience and free will are incompatible, and that any conception of God that incorporates both properties is therefore inherently contradictory.

Sure that makes sense. Must be the standard scientific approach to make an assumption based on stereotyping.
You should have that private discussion the reverend invited you to have...

And you give me crap for misrepresenting QM..


How about we get to the question I asked:

Are you saying we have a freedom of choice in how humanity and the Universe will evolve, or just how we will choose to see how the Universe and all that is in it,is?

Neat sidestep .. so I take it you don't want to discuss it ... you could just have said that



The issue doesn't worry me I am happy to discuss it we have our own science versions of the religious paradox.

QM and GR both throw up similar problems to the religious case in that they imply the sum of all information is required for physics to work.

Wheelers delay choice eraser experiments also shows what happens in the future can affect ones view of the past

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser




So even in science this issue divids because it leaves open the problem that something in our future is affecting observation right now. I will draw the line at retro causality because that has never conclusively been shown but observation yes.

So what I do I believe.

I believe humans as does all of nature, the free will arises because of the pseudo-random physics at play.

It is not completely random because for whatever reason in the universe there is a slight imbalance we see it with matter versus anti-matter and almost all interactions .... to me that is the reason time goes one way.

On evolution I have a very controversial stance I will often get into trouble with Bill over it and I will explain.

Long before it was fashionable to accept QM as solid and important feature of the universe I had come to the conclusion it had to be that way. Like many scientists I watched the black hole information paradox war between Hawking and Penrose versus Susskind and Preskill and like most scientists (and Hawkings eventually conceded) it became obvious that QM could not be destroyed even in a black hole because it would require other key and easily testable QM physics to fail. More distinctly something in the Quantum domain does not necessarily even experience the Gravity domain and that was clear from it's theories. With the LHC finding the Higgs and the Standard Model being installed QM was installed into it's correct place in science and on the same footing as GR/SR.

The problem with Quantum Mechanics is it is simply a description of what is happening it does not tell you why it is happening or what drives it. General Relativity similarly is a description of gravity it doesn't explain why it occurs.

You could say the universe looks like this

GR - Space domain
QM - Time domain
Evolution - Life domain


Without getting too far into it there is starting to assemble a small inkling that whatever is behind QM and GR may also be behind evolution. I would not say it is even a reasonable solid case and it may be just mimicking but there is some striking similarities between all three fields.

Due to the similarities there have been concerted efforts to join QM and GR into Quantum Gravity but all efforts at this stage have failed to produce a result that correctly describes the universe we see and live in. Work with QM and Evolution called Quantum Biology is in it's early stages and there is no conclusive results yet but there is an impressive number of new researchers moving into the field.


For me even if you could merge all three we still have a problem because a description of the universe even merging all this does not describe what is driving it.

So for me the universe = GR + QM + Evolution + ????

The ???? is there because we can't isolate what it is that is driving the system.


So answering your question and this is my view not a science view.

We as humans have freedom of choice as does anything living. However ultimately those choices may lead to a dead end and our extinction as humans. Our end however is not the full story because the choices we made and the other things we interacted with echo out throughout the universe in time, space and life. So even if we are extinct it was important that we were here as it was for any extinct species to make their contribution to the evolution of the universe.

What is the evolution of the universe to me, well that's harder for me as a scientist because I have so little solid data with which to form a view. Why did it come into being I have no idea. Where is it going I believe we have a little more evidence from energy behavior that it is going one way to spread energy maximally between space, time and life.

The implication of that is the energy in each domain will end up spread thinner and thinner the results are predictable

GR (space domain): Energy spread thinner and thinner in larger space meaning a very cold space universe.

QM (time domain): Energy spread thinner and thinner in longer and longer time.

Evolution (Life domain): Energy spread thinner and thinner in more and more complex life.


So there you have my slightly controversial views for what it is worth.

I would never... I prefer not making assumptions about a person and their ideas/beliefs/experiences, based on stereotyping. I get enough of that from the reverend. So I figured you could go behind closed doors with him and Kate to talk about folks behind their backs and gossip all you wanted to, or come out front and speak to the topics we know.

We are discussing it. When we aren't spewing crap from the authoritative majority just because the numbers are what make reality.

My views are not necessarily generated by religious belief in God as a definition.
Time does appear to the ego to have a linear appearance, but then to consciousness itself, (above and beyond the characteristics of the ego which function within linear progression) time is a construct facilitating experience within the relative.
Using your statement that all possibilities exist within each moment, it would be reasonable to assume that from any point, you could go in any direction to experience the multitude of possibilities rather than one available direction to only one possible outcome.

In religion God is often described as the omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent being. God the Father as the single parent to creation. Everywhere and within all of the fabric which binds reality together.
However Religion creates a separation between man and God as well as God and the universe, regardless of whether God is within all of creation. It's a superstitious ploy created by the church to isolate the power within all matter to a local source that only a few can know. This idea was meant to give the heads of church and state an illusory state of supremacy over the general population. Priests were supposed to the be the voice for God having been specially born and bred for the purpose of directing Gods intent. With this power, the church could direct individuals and nations to support any cause that was deemed to be the will and need of God.
Before internet and google, people would believe whatever the church would say, now they are less connected than the mainstream media and the majority that is drawn to whatever programs are used to steer the herd.

Anyway.. If you were to study the religions as well as where they come from, you would find that certain words used to influence the ego into separation, like Father, Son, and Holy spirit, are not separate entities but rather characteristics found within all life, as well as all of matter.
Religion separates the Father as the supreme being. The son as an isolated manifestation of the spirit Father.

To the Catholics, Jehovah's witnesses etc. Jesus was the Son (only son), regardless of whether Jesus preached that all mankind were sons and daughters of God. The holy spirit within the trinity was the connecting link between the unmanifest and the manifest. In religious terms Gods conscience. Sort of like those cartoons where the person is about to make a decision and an angel sits on one shoulder speaking into one ear and the devil on the other shoulder speaking into the other.




God is not predictable, tho religion likes to make that stand.
Free will allows consciousness to take any road within a point of reference (any point of reference) which means any experience, any point in time, and any belief, and create an outcome that is not an absolute.
Consciousness within life is not isolated to the ego, and so it can use time in more than one direction. Ego is conditioned to see it in a linear fashion. Past -----> towards the future. Our consciousness above and beyond the ego can travel in any direction. Time moves inward, outward, up, down, sideways and in multiple dimensions creating alternate realities and universes. Consciousness stands in the pasts, presents, and futures, and is constantly recreating itself.

Ego is fixated on what probably realities it sees as the only outcome based on what it believes the past to indicate.
When ego is in charge or given charge illusions are created.
Omniscience in scientific terms, points to knowledge within any working system. Being that God is not predictable, what this means is that any working system has recognizable patterns within the experience when thought understands the experience as having points that can be identified as probable causes and effects. Consciousness, not being sequestered to any particular experience and having more freedom than the ego can step beyond one story and take some or any of those identifiable points and make a different choice creating alternate realities and experiences in any number of variations.

When we speak of free will we have to take into consideration the construct. A caged animal has certain freedoms to move about the cage. Human ego when conditioned within parameters of belief and thought has a limit to his or her freedom based on where it puts a beginning and an end to its systems of values and laws of nature. The spirit within, or consciousness within ego, is the creator of natural laws, but is not bound by them, it simply uses structure to build realities.

Ego is flexible enough to expand or contract. The mind when conditioned creates its own cage.

Free will is relative to natural boundaries that support their systems of expressed consciousness, which we see as our beliefs, experiences, and the extension of that, in the world and the universe.

To me you still avoided the issue of do I as a human have freedom of choice and why?

This is what I got:

You view that we live in GODS construct and I get the bit about we have an ego and it is bounded to our reality.

I think you are trying to say free will exists only within ones ego within GODS construct ..... rough interpretation.

To me being honest you just moved physical boundaries to psychological boundaries. This all comes out like a bad version of the Matrix movie to me at the moment.


I am left with unanswered questions:

1.) Why GOD's construct what is it's point.

Remember I couldn't answer why we exist either and that's fine sometimes just recognizing what one doesn't know is enough.


2.) Can I defy GOD's will inside my little ego boundary.

To me this was an attempt to keep GOD's omnipotent in a physical sense by moving freedom of choice into a concept of ego and that's fine I don't think it really matters, can I defy GOD in my little ego. An omnipotent GOD should be able to know what you are thinking and taking the problem up into a psychological domain won't change the problem the question is does GOD give you a "domain" that he doesn't control 100%.


3.) I get I create my own reality in my little ego boundary but what is the point to my reality?

This is where I really got the Matrix movie feel that this is all just a conspiracy to keep us thinking so they could tax our electrical energy ... dam you machines .... cue big guns and neo


By the way I should say I am often told I am not very religion sensitive because I really didn't grow up with it at all in my life as it was really banned by the government. So if I overstep a sensitivity point please don't hesitate to let me know I am not trying to offend and I can be very blunt and insensitive.

Orac, I understand your frustration. This being so, may I suggest that you take a close look at the message of Michael Dowd--author of, Thank GOD for EVOLUTION--how the marriage of science and religion will transform your life and our world (2007)

and more,
Here is Michael DOWD'S link, again: http://thankgodforevolution.com/
He welcomes people to write him at,
Feedback@ThankGodforEvolution

I just added that to my list Rev K, I had a quick look at the brief and sounds interesting.

I have to confess I am still reading up on Methodists, I get started then stop then start again ... I hate history!!!!!

Hopefully we will have some interesting stuff to discuss when I get thru it all but you will have to bear with me this stuff is heavy going I am having to read then translate in my head then check what I have translated is what is meant because there is lots of subtle language I am unfamiliar with

I also have a backlog of science readings to get thru as well as do some work ... wish I was older and retired more time to read

Man isn't that the truth, I often feel like a fish out of water in USA because I am supposed to understand all these norms only someone forgot to tell me the norms

Sigh another book to read

=> Religion Is Not About God, philosopher of religion Loyal Rue refers to these two functions as “how things are” and “which things matter.”

Can I ask Rev K is Michael Dowd something like your view, I was shocked that is very progressive

http://evolutionarychristianity.com/blog/evidence-as-divine-guidance/


I am still considering how to do direct communication Rev there are risks for me. I still tunnel out of the reservation to do these posts but direct communication is a whole other matter and I need to think carefully about it.

Edit: I should qualify it's a surveillance risk not a physical risk I am not paranoid and very much a work consideration

Professor-- at the CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF INTEGRAL STUDIES--Brian Swimme, a cosmologist I met, here is Toronto, in the 1970s, said recently that this book should be made into a movie.

Here is a YOUTUBE video about his work:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE4XdGeduTg

In 1947, at 17, I went off to university-- www.mta.ca --as a student who was already progressive in my way of thinking.

I loved the opening comment made that year by the newly-appointed professor in charge of the 60 theological students at MTA:

Dam you beat me and my edit .. please read the post above again