Customer Discussions > Science forum

What (who if you insist) is God?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 101-125 of 140 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 10, 2012 8:26:45 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 10, 2012 8:29:53 AM PDT
G'day Jeff,
I think we're finding a line.

I'm as skeptical as the next Beagle, but pure science can't measure life force.

And I'd dare another scientist to pretend that that reality doesn't exist.

I don't need jaweh to save my soul.

But I've figured out that I (me) have been enjoying, and have to relentlessly cart about, my carcass.

It's not as easy in our second half though, and I, personally, am feeling the wear and tear which hardens perspectives.

But, when push comes to shove, I just want everyone else to be having as much fun as I'm having.

071V8

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 10, 2012 8:27:23 AM PDT
G'day Dan,

What's OT?

071V9

Posted on Jun 10, 2012 8:33:42 AM PDT
Off Topic

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 10, 2012 9:03:57 AM PDT
Jeff Marzano says:
Jody R. Bailey says:

[It's not as easy in our second half though, and I, personally, am feeling the wear and tear which hardens perspectives.]

It sounds like you may be searching for the meaning of life, spiritual truth, etc., as you grow older and the reality of death looms out there on the horizon. As that reality becomes clearer atheism, pure science as a belief system, etc., may become insufficient for some individuals. That can also happen if some catastrophe, tragedy, or traumatic event occurs in someone's life.

Many people find what they think is the truth in the various religions.

On the last few pages of The Republic the philosopher Plato talks about what happens at the beginning of the different ages.

When a new cycle of mortality begins we all choose from a pool of possible destinies. Those who are blinded by greed and lust choose to become tyrants in this world. But the true philosophers choose more wisely and with more restraint.

The great adventurer Odysseus knew he would become disillusioned with adventure and danger and chose simpler and quieter experiences for his later incarnations.

Then the Sisters Of Fate take all of our choices and weave them on their loom into the fabric of destiny.

This gets into the idea that before we are born we see our life's plan laid out in front of us. Consciously we don't remember this plan. But the super conscious does remember and it gives us glimpses of this plan in the form of intuition.

I think many people have had the experience of meeting someone for the first time and feeling like they have known them forever.

All of this implies that there is much less randomness and chance in life than some people may think.

"God knows everything that will happen, and more importantly everything that could happen."

Jeff Marzano

Posted on Jun 10, 2012 2:47:36 PM PDT
Gwaithmir says:
"Man cannot make a worm, yet he will make gods by the dozen." --Michel de Montaigne

Posted on Jun 13, 2012 6:35:10 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 13, 2012 6:49:13 AM PDT
It looks like this conversation has run its course.

Scored a ton!

Thanks to all of you for the civil intercourse.

It does none of us credit to do otherwise.

I love youse all.

071V8
p.s. the best observation of this post goes to jpl:

I don't think this UNKNOWABLE is anything one can conceive unless it's possible to reach such a state of consciousness beyond description. In other words, if such a thing beyond our abilities to describe what might be called a god, this, I think, is something that must be worked for individually and realized only by the few who are working hard enough to subjectively experience it.

Poetic

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 13, 2012 6:39:44 AM PDT
G'day Jeff,
That said, you've been a pillar.

And you've given me pause.

I'd love to push it to the boundary.

071V8

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 13, 2012 4:46:59 PM PDT
Jeff Marzano says:
Jody R. Bailey says:

[I'd love to push it to the boundary.]

Well I'm still subscribed to this discussion if you say anything else.

It may have been better located in the Religion forum though.

Jeff Marzano

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 14, 2012 6:40:17 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 14, 2012 6:41:14 AM PDT
Jeff Marzano wrote:
"God knows everything that will happen, and more importantly everything that could happen."
=====================================================================
Jeff,

If you really know what God knows why do not you declare yourself the Son?

If it was true that there was God and that such God knows what will happen, then there is no need to start life when the outcome is already known.

The irony in the concept of God is that we are too diverse to perceive God in few simple alternatives. Your alternative is self-defeating, moot.

Mohamed F. El-Hewie

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 14, 2012 6:48:57 AM PDT
Bwaa-hahahha-snerkk.

Moh said moot!

kakkkakle

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 14, 2012 6:53:52 AM PDT
But genuinely Mohamed,
Thank you for your considered position and civil intercourse.

It's the players at any position along our belief/value spectrum who have difficulty focussing outward that make the biggest ar5es of themselves.

And that's pretty much each and everyone of us from time to time.

It's the bloodywell truth.

'Struth!

071V8

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 16, 2012 8:54:49 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 16, 2012 8:56:10 AM PDT
Jeff Marzano says:
Mohamed F. El-Hewie says:

[If you really know what God knows why do not you declare yourself the Son ?]

Well Christians think Christ was God's son. I'm not Him.

The people from planet Iarga said there are 12 universes and Jesus Christ is God's son for our universe. Christ has 11 brothers.

Also our universe is 30 billion years old which is more than twice as old as our scientists today think. Whether all 12 universes came into existence at the same time I don't know. I don't think they said that in the book.

Twelve and multiples of 12 such as 24, 72, and 144 come up in the bible and many other places. The Star Of David symbol represents this idea of the 12 universes.

Christ often used parables to explain great truths in terms that simple people could understand. It was this ability that for many makes Him the greatest philosopher of all time.

Some of those parables predicted what would happen to Christ. So in that sense He actually lived out and became the philosophy He spoke about.

Some authors view Christianity as it is understood and practiced today with disdain. They feel that only they and their misguided followers truly understand what Christ said. They refer to the so called 'lost gospels' such as the false Gospel Of Thomas where it sounds like Christ was talking to physicists and PhDs.

Helena Blavatsky, Gregg Braden, Daniel Pinchbeck, and Dan Brown come to mind as authors who thought or still think that way.

Manly P. Hall also has that problem at times although Hall was very knowledgeable and well informed about the mythologies and legends of the ancient past:

The Secret Teachings of All Ages (Reader's Edition)

Earlyne Chaney also got caught in that trap of reading too much unfounded mysticism into Christianity. But her book about her past life experiences in very ancient Egypt is excellent:

Initiation in the Great Pyramid (Astara's library of mystical classics)

The subject of initiation comes up a lot in books about philosophy and ancient legends and beliefs. The initiation process was intended to raise people to higher levels of spiritual awareness and understanding.

The philosopher Plato supposedly experienced the Egyptian initiation process in some form as had Moses, Pythagoras, and Christ.

In Mexico the natives call the places where their pyramids once stood 'the places where men became gods'.

Leonardo Da Vinci was a very mysterious and enigmatic historical figure. A good writer could have created a great story based on Da Vinci without having to drag the Lord's name through the mud. But alas Dan Brown is no such writer. That book The Da Vinci Code is pure crap.

Jeff Marzano

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 16, 2012 9:12:16 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 16, 2012 9:14:39 AM PDT
Jeff Marzano wrote:
"The people from planet Iarga said there are 12 universes and Jesus Christ is God's son for our universe. Christ has 11 brothers. "
==================================
Jeff,

As a Muslim, myself, I, as well as most Muslims, do believe in the deeds and wisdom of prophets and messengers of God. The physical identity of the prophet (Jesus or Muhammad, in this case) do not matter.

Whether Jesus Christ has 11 brothers or sisters would not change anything in life unless Jesus and his siblings left meaningful wisdom and deeds that guide humanity to straight paths.

But, I am presently spending my summer working on an electron beam to get it into the tiniest spot possible my natural laws. Thus, prophets would not count in my paradigm unless one could guide me to the right design within few steps. I am not greedy. Few hundreds of steps are better than few thousands and would convince me with the wisdom of the prophet.

Mohamed F. El-Hewie

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 16, 2012 9:35:28 AM PDT
Jeff Marzano says:
Well don't be too hasty to discount the knowledge and philosophy of the ancient past.

There's an interesting past life memory in the following book about a guy who remembered being a priest in very ancient Egypt:

Same Soul, Many Bodies: Discover the Healing Power of Future Lives through Progression Therapy

He said the Egyptian priests used something called 'energy rods' which generated both light and sound to stimulate the human body's ability to regenerate itself. They could for example cause the body to regenerate an arm or leg that had been lost in warfare.

These arcane healing arts were practiced in the utmost secrecy in the temples. Even the people who worked in the temples didn't know where the secret chambers were.

It's very interesting because the new frontier in medicine today is regeneration. Tissue taken from pig bladders is being used to trigger the body to regenerate itself. The lowly pig is restoring to us some of the knowledge that once existed in the ancient past.

Doctors today are using stem cells and pig bladders to do what the Egyptian priests of old did using light and sound which are vibrations.

If I were you I would read the following book:

The Giza Power Plant : Technologies of Ancient Egypt

Maybe hidden somewhere in that book is the information that will allow you to make the big breakthrough with your experiments.

Jeff Marzano

Edgar Cayce on Vibrations: Spirit in Motion

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 16, 2012 5:04:39 PM PDT
tom kriske says:
ddlpuiqwyt? uvx wu joperthhfem!!

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 17, 2012 3:25:06 AM PDT
righto, tommy

I'll see your ddlpuiqwyt? uvx wu joperthhfem!!

and raise you a KnNNnkknnsSSsnnoorrg....GgGghhrrrkkaaarrknknknkkklleh...fFgngnaaarghghghghghdhgfd...PHLoo-splatchk!

Damn Straight!

071V8

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 18, 2012 6:37:01 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 18, 2012 7:24:11 AM PDT
E.M. Van Court: "Richard Kepler says:
"I think some higher-level machinery and goals are at work, and inductively in evidence. EVOLUTIONISTS IGNORE THAT EVIDENCE."

"I think..." =/= "EVIDENCE"

So cute when religious nuts try to use logic!"

I think it's so curious when evolutionists cannot bring themselves to comprehend ID arguments enough to comment on them intelligently. Here, EM provided a bogus extrapolation from and contortion of one of my statements. He quotes it in isolation and then apparently considers that action of his own logical.

What was his actual mistake? He took an introductory caveat ("I think...") that only signified an opinion/conjecture and entered it into the core of my main assertion as if it were its fundamental glue logic (=). In effect, he stated my prefacing of 'I am providing my opinion here..." to mean "This is my evidence/support". So he did not only extracted the quote out of context without comment, but he got confused and completely disoriented in his direct reading. He made a bogus reading of it.

What he did is not merely illogical, but simpleminded. How so? Consider this: I never even came close to saying "I think" = "my evidence". If so, EM, prove it! I said that higher-level machinery and goals constitute evidence. Of course, that was a general statement. EM could have legitimately challenged it as such. He could have said it was too unspecified and left vague as a conjecture. Sure, that's a valid point! But he didn't didn't that or anything objective like it.

Instead of making an objective statement that could reasonably follow from something I actually said, he made a completely bogus claim about what I said. Doing such could even consistitute deliberate underhanded sleight of hand here. I hope that isn't the case; it could instead be merely a stupid oversight due to only the use of skim reading and impressionistic (read here: highly subjective) comment.

IT LOOKS LIKE HE ALSO TOOK MY ASSERTION AS A SELF-CONTAINED STATEMENT. Of course he would call it illogical while looking at it in isolation; he cropped it out without any mention of its context. It was to (I won't say 'I think' here; his criticism appeared too simple to know how to handle that grammatically) delete the argument and details that gave its full sense. That's one of the goals of quote mining! EVOLUTIONISTS SUCH AS THIS APPEAR TO ONLY CONTORT OTHERS' STATEMENTS IN ORDER TO UNJUSTLY DISPARAGE THEM.

They seem to *need* simple fodder to work with. So they grab onto (as in this case) a preface and a part of the actual argument indiscriminately, without even understanding the assertion, contorting it into useless garbage by their impression of it and the writer. Then they not only blame us, but lambast our character and dignity merely for their own illogical reading.

Let's see the same process EM used on my assertion operates both logically and meaningfully on one of EM's own offerings:

EM: " 'I think...' =/= 'EVIDENCE' So cute when religious nuts try to use logic!" =/= EM: I use cute evidence to think religious when I try nut logic.

It's just a similar rearrangement of words he supplied us with. Is it a reasonable paraphrase and synopsis of what EM said to us? No? But it's the same type of illogical arrangement he used on my view to make it say something I didn't. Shouldn't we treat both paraphrases as completely bogus restatements? Absolutely, because they are both non sequitur.

Posted on Jun 23, 2012 12:02:25 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 23, 2012 12:03:23 PM PDT
Friedrich Nietzsche said "If there is a God I could not stand not being him."
Therefore there is no God, or Friedrich Nietzsche was in denial.

Either way, maybe we should build churches to celebrate that Friedrich Nietzsche is dead. I wonder what day he liked the most?

Who's dead? God? Friedrich Nietzsche? Humanity?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 23, 2012 4:21:42 PM PDT
His favorite day according to him was the day he got the idea of The Eternal Recurrence, which he considered the greatest possible affirmation of life.

Nietzsche is most definitely and permanently dead.

Posted on Jun 23, 2012 4:38:47 PM PDT
Slippery slope of a question, since any definition would be woefully inadequate. How about this: Everything that is, everything that isn't, everything between, and everything that transcends the first three.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 23, 2012 5:07:09 PM PDT
Faithradha says:
Who's dead?

As man evolves... at all levels.... physical, mental, emotional and spiritual.... man's IDEA of what "God" is also evolves... exanding and maturing. So.. it is man's limited and finite IDEA of what "God" is... that is dying away... to be replaced by a more expanded understanding of what "God" is AND also of what Man is.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 23, 2012 5:09:47 PM PDT
Faithradha says:
Artemus Q. Kraig says:
Slippery slope of a question, since any definition would be woefully inadequate. How about this: Everything that is, everything that isn't, everything between, and everything that transcends the first three.

FR: Works for me. : ) ... and the "Slippery slope" too. :P

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 24, 2012 7:31:36 AM PDT
Jeff Marzano says:
Reading a passage from one of Nietzsche's books is like entering an endless, unnavigable maze of chaos and confusion with no hope of ever getting out.

Each word is like the entrance to another section of the maze as the reader descends further and further into that quagmire and abyss of twisted and convoluted thought.

["...the question remains open: are the axioms of logic adequate to reality or are they a means and measure for us to shape reality, the concept "reality," for ourselves? - To affirm the former one would...have to have a previous knowledge of being - which is certainly not the case. The proposition therefore contains no criterion of truth, but an *imperative* concerning that which *should* count as true." -Nietzsche]

Posted on Jun 24, 2012 8:56:51 AM PDT
OldAmazonian says:
If God created everything, then God created God.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 24, 2012 9:38:15 AM PDT
You've got it backwards. In general Nietzsche expressed himself more clearly than any other major philosopher with the possible exception of Plato.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Science forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  24
Total posts:  140
Initial post:  May 31, 2012
Latest post:  Jun 25, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 7 customers

Search Customer Discussions